Eric Pickles: I do indeed congratulate them. My hon. Friend points out to those on the Opposition Benches a way in which money can be directed towards the front line. I hope that the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) will send out requests that Labour councils similarly to look towards trade unions and reducing their costs.

Grant Shapps: It may have escaped the attention of Opposition Members that the new homes bonus rewards the authorities that build homes. That is why it is called the new homes bonus. Of the five areas that are building the most homes—the five top councils to receive the new homes bonus—three of them are in the midlands or the north.

Julie Hilling: On Friday I met representatives of Westhoughton visiting service who, having lost a third of their budget, do not know where to turn to make sure that their elderly clients get the support they need. That is one of the many voluntary and community sectors groups that have contacted me in desperation. I hope that the Minister does not reply by saying that Bolton council should have prepared for the cuts or should protect the voluntary sector, because it did and it has, but the Government have cut £42 million—three
	times more than Labour would have cut. If the council does not have the money, it cannot give it to groups. What can I say to these groups?

Chris Williamson: The wheels are well and truly coming off the Government’s explanation for their swingeing cuts to local government—that is pretty clear. Contrary to his assertion that he would protect the most vulnerable by making his cuts “fair and progressive”, the Secretary of State is actually imposing the biggest cuts on the country’s poorest
	communities and leaving more affluent areas relatively unscathed. Even his own housing Minister confessed last week that the poorest areas will shoulder the harshest cuts. Will the Minister replying do the decent thing and admit that the Secretary of State’s declaration about fairness and the Chancellor’s assertion that we are all in it together are completely and utterly preposterous?

Guto Bebb: I thank the Minister for his response. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the new funding for the Firstbuy scheme will help the construction industry, creating new jobs and increasing the pace of economic growth?

Grant Shapps: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for allowing me to clear up one thing. It is worth knowing that when I said that the HomeBuy Direct scheme had been an expensive flop, it had been launched 10 months earlier and had helped just five people to secure a home. It is true that the scheme has developed over a period of time and has helped people in between times, but as I said in my previous answer—I appreciate that it was given after she had written her question, but none the less it is useful to connect the two—the previous scheme does not end until 2012. We are in 2011, and we have already announced a new scheme.

Greg Clark: The coalition Government have moved fast to enable communities to protect their green spaces. Three measures stand out. The first is the end to the perverse classification of gardens as brownfield land, which has led to the destructive practice of garden grabbing. The second is the abolition of density targets so that developers have greater freedom to provide homes with gardens. The third is the introduction of neighbourhood plans, which will allow local people to safeguard green spaces and incorporate them into their vision of their community.

Greg Clark: Of course, they are not. At the moment, the regional strategies place a threat over communities, as the hon. Gentleman knows. He is a great localist, and he and I agree on this. I commend his blog to those on the Opposition Front Bench, who are chuntering away. There is a very persuasive piece on this matter under the title, “The party I love is a party of ideals. That’s why I back David Miliband”. It states:
	“I’ve always wanted to be in a party rooted in our diverse communities…nourished and reinvigorated by the ideas and aspirations that stem from our grass roots.”
	We are giving the grass roots the right to determine the future of their green spaces, something for which I welcome his support.

Andrew Robathan: Today, the Army and the Royal Navy will announce details of their tranche 1 redundancy fields, setting out the specialisations, branches and ranks from which we are seeking volunteers for redundancy. This was a planned, publicised and expected announcement, following that already completed for the Royal Air Force on 1 March this year to deliver the necessary reductions in the size of our armed forces as required by the strategic defence and security review.
	We had wanted to lay a written ministerial statement at 4 o’clock this afternoon—a time chosen by the services to allow sufficient time for them to brief service personnel ahead of them hearing about it from a third party. Indeed, many will have read a story on armed forces redundancy published in The Daily Telegraph on Saturday. It was extremely disappointing that any details were leaked and equally appalling that the press would publish a story that will in no way change the difficult decisions we have to make, but adds a further concern to service personnel and their families—a position we have striven to avoid. Indeed, it was to allow all personnel to be briefed that we passed details to the chain of command on Friday.
	As has been made clear in this House on several occasions, we would prefer not to make anyone redundant, but we have to do this to make the very real required savings in defence costs to take control of the deficit. As has been emphasised, this Government will not, for political expediency, shy away from announcing details when they are expected; our armed forces deserve this honesty.
	The redundancy programme will not impact adversely on the current operations in Afghanistan or in Libya, where our armed forces are fighting so bravely on this country’s behalf. This was a key assumption in the strategic defence and security review. We will inform all those individuals selected for redundancy in this, the first of up to four tranches, in September 2011—specifically, 1 September for the Army and RAF and 30 September for the Royal Navy. Those voluntarily leaving the armed forces will do so within six months; non-volunteers will do so within a year. For all those leaving the armed forces as a result of these changes, every effort will be made to assist in what can often be a difficult transition. We will continue to work hard in this area. Our people deserve nothing less.

Andrew Robathan: I could not agree with my hon. Friend more. The regular reserve personnel do, indeed, play a very important role, and I will make sure that they are kept informed.

Jason McCartney: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have no doubt in the ability of our armed forces to fulfil the tasks given to them, but I have some worries about morale. Will the Minister join me in appealing to the media to take a responsible attitude to the way they report these facts, and to have respect for the chain of command?

Douglas Alexander: I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement and for allowing me advance sight of it this afternoon. May I also join him in expressing revulsion on behalf of the Opposition at the murders of the seven UN workers in Afghanistan this weekend? He is right—and speaks for the whole House in this—generously to commend their work and unequivocally to condemn their killers.
	May I also associate myself with the Foreign Secretary’s comments about the gravely worrying situation in Côte d’Ivoire? I welcome news that he has held discussions this morning with the chair of the African Union Commission, Jean Ping, and that contingency plans are in place for any evacuation deemed necessary. I join the Foreign Secretary in stating clearly and categorically that Laurent Gbagbo must step down immediately. If he does not stand down, there is clearly a risk of a repeat of the situation we had in Angola in 1992 when a disputed election led to a protracted civil war. Given that risk, will the Foreign Secretary share with the House his assessment, in the light of those conversations with the African Union, of Nigeria’s willingness to contemplate supporting any west African-led intervention force in Côte d’Ivoire? Given the prior opposition to such a move by Ghana and Gambia, what assessment has he made of the possibility that the Economic Community of West African States might be able to agree to an intervention force in the event of the conflict continuing in the days, weeks and months ahead? What assessment has he made of the number of Governments in the African Union that still support Mr Gbagbo?
	On Syria, on Friday thousands of Syrians took to the streets of Douma after prayers and were reported by the BBC to have been chanting, “We want freedom.” Yesterday it was reported that again thousands of people had taken to the streets there, this time to bury at least eight people who died during Friday’s protests. The legitimate demands of these protestors should be met, as the Foreign Secretary said, by reform and not by repression. What assessment has he made of the likely impact on the reform process of the appointment of the new Prime Minister, Adel Safar?
	Let me associate myself and the Opposition with the position set out by the Foreign Secretary on both Yemen and Bahrain.
	The situation in Libya has, of course, dominated debate within and beyond the House in recent weeks. The Foreign Secretary at the weekend was optimistic that we have not yet reached a stage of stalemate, but beyond protecting civilians from the air, UN resolution 1973 provided a range of diplomatic powers intended to deepen the isolation and increase the pressure on the Gaddafi regime. These included an expansion of asset freezes, enforcing the arms embargo and measures to prevent mercenaries from flying into Libya. Will the Foreign Secretary provide an update specifically on the implementation of these non-military diplomatic aspects of resolution 1973?
	I welcome the fact that Christopher Prentice’s team is in Benghazi assessing the situation and entering into dialogue with the interim national council. The Foreign Secretary has just told the House that “we are not engaged in arming the opposition forces. We are prepared to supply non-lethal equipment that will help with the protection of civilian lives and the delivery of humanitarian aid.” He went on to say that he had decided this morning with his colleagues on the National Security Council to supply the transitional national council with telecommunications equipment. Will he therefore inform the House whether opposition military forces have been in receipt of any support from British military personnel in maintaining or upgrading the military equipment that they already possess?
	Turning to the case of Musa Kusa, his defection should be taken as a welcome sign of the disillusionment and disunity within the Gaddafi regime. Following his defection, can the Foreign Secretary give us his latest assessment of the situation within the Gaddafi regime? In particular, how seriously should the House treat the discussions between Musa Kusa’s successor and the Greek Foreign Minister in trying to find a way of resolving the conflict? Clearly, our first priority has to be the urgent operational need to ascertain information from Musa Kusa with respect to the present conflict in Libya. UN Security Council resolution 1973 must be enforced, and if he can help in any way to bring that about, all sides of the House must surely welcome it.
	However, many in the House will want to know that Musa Kusa is not and should not be above British or international law. Last week I supported calls saying that the appropriate authorities including, of course, the police should in time be able to ask him all the necessary questions about Libya’s violent history, not least here on British soil. The murder of a police officer in Northern Ireland on Saturday, on which Ministers are due to give a statement later today, will no doubt remind the House of the links between the Libyan regime in the past and decades of terrorism on British soil.
	I welcome the news, therefore, that the Scottish Crown Office and Dumfries and Galloway constabulary are now in discussions with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office about how to pursue their investigations. Will the Foreign Secretary tell the House whether any other authorities in the United Kingdom or in other countries at the international level have been in contact with the Foreign Office over the arrival of Musa Kusa as part of their investigations into Libyan terrorism or crimes against humanity perpetrated in Libya?
	In conclusion, both sides of the House supported the decision to enforce UN Security Council resolution 1973. The members of our armed forces, of course, have the continuing support of the House, and the Government have our continued support in using diplomatic means to maintain pressure on, and deepen the isolation of, the Gaddafi regime.

William Hague: The hon. Gentleman is getting involved there and taking sides, but I hesitate to call it a civil war. It is an uprising by people who started with peaceful demonstrations against a despotic regime that then waged war, using heavy equipment, artillery and air power, against them, even at the stage when all they were trying to do was to demonstrate and to ask for the rights that we take for granted in so many other parts of the world. So I hesitate to call that a civil war; it is a Government waging war on their own people. Nevertheless, I think I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he looks for: we will implement the UN Security Council resolution, and that is what we are there to do. If it had not been for that resolution and the legal authority that it provides, we would not be engaged in what we are doing in Libya. We rest on that resolution, but we will continue to implement it.

Mary Macleod: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that matters in the Ivory Coast will be dealt with with some urgency due to the current heavy loss of life that has already taken place?

William Hague: This is a vital subject that we discussed in part of the London conference last week. It will be an important part of the discussion at the first meeting of the contact group, which, as I explained in my statement, will take place in Doha next week. The United Nations Secretary-General made it very clear at the London conference that the UN was prepared to take the lead in co-ordinating the stabilisation and humanitarian work, which was an extremely welcome commitment. The next stage, on top of the urgent work supported by our Department for Intentional Development that I mentioned earlier, is to conduct more detailed consideration of Libya’s future stabilisation needs at the Doha meeting.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement to the House. On the arrival from Misrata of the hospital ship with some 1,000-plus injured people on board who were hurt as a result of the terrorist campaign, will he tell us what steps he will take to ensure that the Gaddafi regime and his soldiers are stopped from carrying out their clinically murderous campaign against innocent civilians? What steps will he take to ensure that Misrata is not overrun, and that the voice of freedom is maintained?

Robert Halfon: Under the cover of what else is going on in the middle east, the Iranian regime recently increased the sentences of seven Ba'hai leaders to 20 years. Will my right hon. Friend make strong representations to the Iranian Government to stop the persecution of the Iranian Ba'hais?

William Hague: Yes, most certainly-my hon. Friend is quite right to draw attention to that. The Iranian Government now have one of the worst human rights records in the world. They have four times as many journalists in detention as any other country; they have carried out per capita more executions than any other country so far this year; they have imprisoned the two principal opposition leaders; and they have added to all of that with the outrage to which my hon. Friend refers, and we unreservedly condemn it.

Andrew Lansley: With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a statement about NHS modernisation. Modernisation of the national health service is necessary, is in patients' interests and is the right thing to do to secure the NHS for future generations. The Health and Social Care Bill is one part of a broader vision of health and health services in this country being among the best in the world; world-leading measurement of the results we achieve for patients; patients always experiencing "No decision about me without me"; a service where national standards and funding secure a high-quality, comprehensive service available to all, based on need and not the ability to pay; and where the power to deliver is in the hands of local doctors, nurses, health professionals and local communities.
	The House will know that the Bill completed its Committee stage last Thursday. I was also able to announce last week that a further 43 GP-led commissioning consortia had successfully applied to be pathfinder commissioning groups. We now have a total of 220 groups representing 87% of the country; that is 45 million patients whose GP surgeries are committed to showing how they can further improve services for their patients. In addition, 90% of relevant local authorities have come forward to be early implementers of health and well-being boards, bringing democratic leadership to health, public health and social care at local level.
	That progress is very encouraging. Our desire is to move forward with the support of doctors, nurses and others who work in the NHS and make a difference to the lives of so many of us, day in and day out. However, we recognise that the speed of progress has brought with it some substantive concerns, expressed in various quarters. Some of those concerns are misplaced or based on misrepresentations, but we recognise that some of them are genuine. We want to continue to listen to, engage with and learn from experts, patients and front-line staff within the NHS and beyond and to respond accordingly. I can therefore tell the House that we propose to take the opportunity of a natural break in the passage of the Bill to pause, listen and engage with all those who want the NHS to succeed, and subsequently to bring forward amendments to improve the plans further in the normal way. We have, of course, listened and improved the plans already. We strengthened the overview and scrutiny process of local authorities in response to consultation, and we made amendments in Committee to make it absolutely clear that competition will be on the basis of quality, not price. Patients will choose and GPs will refer on the basis of comparisons of quality, not price.
	Let me indicate some areas where I anticipate that we will be able to make improvements, in order to build and sustain support for the modernisation that we recognise is crucial. Choice, competition and the involvement of the private sector should only ever be a means to improve services for patients, not ends in themselves. Some services, such as accident and emergency or major trauma services, will clearly never be based on competition. People want to know that private companies cannot cherry-pick NHS activity, undermining existing NHS providers, and that competition must be fair. Under Labour, the private sector got a preferential deal, with £250 million paid for operations that never happened. We have to stop that. People want to know that GP commissioning groups cannot have a conflict of interest, are transparent in their decisions, and are accountable not only nationally, but locally, through the democratic input of health and well-being boards. We, too, want that to be the case. People want to know that the patient's voice is genuinely influential, through HealthWatch and in commissioning. Doctors and nurses in the service have been clear: they want the changes to support truly integrated services, breaking down the institutional barriers that have held back modernisation in the past.
	As I told the House on 16 March, we are committed to listening, and we will take every opportunity to improve the Bill. The principles of the Bill are that patients should always share in decisions about their care; that front-line staff should lead the design of local services; that patients should have access to whichever services offer the best quality; that all NHS trusts should gain the freedoms of foundation trust status; that we should take out day-to-day political interference, through the establishment of a national NHS commissioning board and through strong independent regulation for safety, quality and effectiveness; that the public's and patients' voices must be strengthened; and that local government should be in the lead in public health strategy. Those are the principles of a world-class NHS which command widespread professional and public backing. All those principles will be pursued through the Bill, and our commitment as a coalition Government to them is undiminished.
	We support and are encouraged by all those across England who are leading the changes nationally and locally. We want them to know that they can be confident in taking this work forward. Our objective is to listen to them and support them, as we take the Bill through. No change is not an option. With an ageing and increasing population, new technologies and rising costs, we have to adapt and improve. Innovation and clinical leadership will be key. We want to reverse a decade of declining productivity. We have to make productive care and preventive services the norm, and we must continue to cut the costs of administration, quangos and bureaucracy. The House knows my commitment to the national health service and my passion for it to succeed. To protect the NHS for the future must mean change-not in the values of the NHS, but through bringing forward and empowering leadership in the NHS to secure the quality of services on which we all depend.
	Change is never easy, but the NHS is well placed to respond. I can tell the House today that the NHS is in a healthy financial position. Waiting times remain at historically low levels, as promised under the NHS constitution. Patients with symptoms of cancer now see a specialist more quickly than ever before. MRSA is at- [ Interruption. ]

Andrew Lansley: MRSA is at its lowest level since records began. We have helped more than 2,000 patients have access to new cancer drugs that would previously have been denied to them. All that is a testament to the excellent work of NHS staff up and down the country, and we thank them for their efforts to achieve these results for their patients. The coalition Government are increasing NHS funding by £11.5 billion over this Parliament, but the service cannot afford to waste any money. We can sustain and build on those improvements only by modernising the service to be ever more efficient and effective with taxpayers' money.
	The Bill is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to set the NHS on a sustainable course, building on the commitment and skills of the people who work for it. Our purpose is simple: to provide the best health care service anywhere in the world. I commend this statement to the House.

John Healey: I thank the Secretary of State for Health for a copy of his statement shortly before he made it this afternoon. So Mr Speaker, in the middle of confusion, chaos and incompetence, the Prime Minister has pushed the Health Secretary out of the bunker to try and tell people what exactly and what on earth they are doing with the NHS. Why is the Health Secretary here and not the Prime Minister? After all, we have been told that the Prime Minister has taken charge and it was he who made his most personal pledge to protect the NHS and to stop top-down reorganisations that have got in the way of patient care. It is the Prime Minister who is now breaking his promises on the NHS.
	Will the Health Secretary tell us why the Tories did not tell people before the election about the biggest reorganisation in NHS history? Why did they not tell the Lib Dems about the reorganisation before the coalition agreement was signed? Whatever the Government say or do now, there is no mandate-either from the election or the coalition agreement-for this reckless and ideological upheaval in the health service. In truth, the Health Secretary is here only because there is a growing crisis of confidence over the far-reaching changes that the Government are making to the NHS.
	There is confusion at the heart of Government, with briefings and counter-briefings on all sides, and patients starting to see the NHS go backwards again under the Tories-with waiting times rising, front-line nursing staff cut and services cut back. Yet the Health Secretary has done nothing to restore public confidence in the Government's handling of the NHS and nothing to convince people to back the Tories' reorganisation plans. Everything he said today the Government were told about in the consultation-and they ignored it. Everything he said today the Government were told in Committee-and they rejected it.
	This is not just a problem with the pace of change; simply doing the wrong thing more slowly is not the answer. It is not just a problem with presentation. In fact, the more people see the plans, the more concerned they become about them. That is why there is growing criticism of the Tories' plans for the NHS-from doctors, nurses, patients' groups, NHS experts, the Health Select Committee, the Lib Dems and peers of all parties in the House of Lords. I have to hand it to the Health Secretary: it takes a special talent to unite opposition from Norman Tebbit and MC NxtGen. That is why Labour has been saying that the reorganisation requires a root-and-branch rethink and that the legislation requires radical surgery.
	There are fundamental flaws in what the Government are doing, not just in what they are saying. The test is whether the Prime Minister will now deal with these fundamental flaws. Will he radically safeguard commissioning to draw on the full range of NHS expertise, to prevent conflicts of interests, bonus payments to GPs and to guarantee that important decisions are taken in public not in private? Will he radically strengthen local accountability to the public and to patients? Will he delete the one third of the Bill that breaks up the NHS and makes it into a full-blown market ruled by the forces of market regulation and EU competition law? Will this be just a public relations exercise or will real changes be made in the NHS plans-or has the Prime Minister not yet told the Health Secretary? This is no way to run a Bill; this is no way to run a Government; this is no way to run the NHS.

Andrew Lansley: We heard from the Leader of the Opposition earlier that the NHS needed to change, but once again we have heard nothing from Labour Members about how it needs to change. It is not unusual to hear nothing from them. They say that we need to tackle the deficit, but they will not say how. They say that we must change the NHS, but they will not say how.
	Interestingly, in January the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) said that he agreed with the aims of the Bill. He said that he supported a
	"greater role for clinicians in commissioning care, more involvement of patients, less bureaucracy and greater priority on improving health outcomes".
	At the last election, his manifesto said that he wanted all NHS trusts to become foundation trusts. It said that he wanted patients to have access to every provider, be it private sector, voluntary sector or NHS-owned. Now we do not know what the Labour party's policy is at all, but what I do know is that the Government will give leadership to the NHS, and that we will give the NHS a strategy enabling it to deliver improving results in future.
	The right hon. Gentleman clearly wrote his response to the statement before reading it. In fact, we have made it clear that we will listen to what is said about precisely the issues on which people in the NHS and people who depend on the NHS are united. They know which issues are really important. They know that we must be clear about accountability, and that there must be transparency. Clinicians throughout the health service want to work together, and want the structure of the service to help them to work together so that they can deliver more holistic and joined-up services to patients. We want that, and they want that. We will back up our strategy with detail, but from the right hon. Gentleman we heard no strategy, no detail, and no answers whatsoever.
	We are clear about the principles that we are pursuing through the reform and modernisation of the national health service. We are listening, and we are engaging with those principles. We are listening to the people in the health service who have come together to implement those principles, so that we can help them to do so effectively. Labour Members have not even listened to those who threw them out at the last election, because they are still wedded to the past and to a failed, top-down, centralised, bureaucratic approach.

Stephen Dorrell: All who genuinely wish the NHS well and consider it to be an important part of our national heritage will welcome my right hon. Friend's commitment to ensuring that clinical practice delivered by the NHS is kept up to date with the best available medical practice, and responds effectively to the wishes of patients. Will he continue to develop effective commissioning as the best way of delivering that, building on 20 years of commitment to the principle of commissioning under Governments of all political complexions since 1990?

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. He knows and I know-and past Secretaries of State, with the exception of the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) also knew-that in order to deliver the best possible care in the NHS, we needed to engage clinical leadership more effectively. That is what these reforms are about. The modernisation of the NHS is about better and stronger clinical leadership delivering better commissioning of care and thereby helping to deliver better provision of care, and about allying that with democratic accountability at a local level. Neither of those things has happened sufficiently in the past, but both are at the heart of our Bill.

Andrew Lansley: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman should denigrate what staff in the NHS have achieved over the past year. He will not have read the deputy chief executive's report on NHS activity, which shows improvements in breast screening rates, improvements in bowel screening rates- [Interruption.]

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. He and other Surrey Members will be aware of that primary care trust's past failure to manage effectively within its budget. The GPs in Surrey are, like many others across the country, coming together and demonstrating that they can achieve much greater service improvement within NHS resources-and those resources will increase in future years.

Sarah Newton: I very much welcome the Secretary of State's continued support for the NHS in Cornwall, with the cash increases this year, the long overdue integration of adult social care with the NHS, and the real opportunity of giving power to local people through the health and well-being boards. Will he ensure that the central changes he wants to introduce to achieve the aim of "no decision about me without me" are kept absolutely at the heart of what he does?

Andrew Lansley: I am afraid the hon. Lady is completely wrong about that. We have continuously listened. After the publication of the White Paper, we had a full 12-week consultation with more than 6,000 responses, and in December's Command Paper we set out a whole series of changes that were consequent on that, including to the structure of commissioning and the timetable for the transfer of NHS trusts into foundation trusts. In Committee, we have introduced further amendments, not least to make it clear that competition in the NHS will be on the basis of quality not price, which is very important because that is a concern that people raised.

Sajid Javid: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's efforts in modernising the NHS. The concept of GP commissioning has been widely supported by politicians from all parties for many years. May I urge my right hon. Friend to keep putting patients first by increasing GP involvement in the NHS?

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. We have now-earlier than any of us had imagined-arrived at the point where most of the country has pathfinder consortia in place. It is absolutely the right moment to engage with them to discuss how we can ensure that the concerns that have been properly raised, about transparency and accountability in governance and the avoidance of conflicts of interest, will be dealt with in the legislation. We want the legislation to work for them and the people we serve.

John Pugh: I thank the Secretary of State for having the grace and courage to respond to legitimate concerns. Given the agreement that exists in the House-not about the effects of the Bill, on which there is no agreement, but about its aims-does he agree that we should not get hung up about whether substantial changes will in future be referred to as "tweaking", "surgery" or, possibly, "surgical tweaking"? Is not the main thing to get a Bill that carries the broad support of Parliament, NHS professionals and the country? We do not need to sell this Bill better; we need to take the spectre of salesmanship out of the NHS.

Andrew Lansley: The hon. Gentleman and I know one another well enough to know that we share a commitment to the NHS and that I am determined. Perhaps I sometimes get very close to all of this because I am very close to the NHS. I spend my time thinking about this subject and I spend my time with people in the service. I spend my time trying to ensure that the Bill is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to get it right for people in the NHS-they want to be free. The British Medical Association made it clear that it wants an end to constant political interference in the NHS. We can do that only if we secure the necessary autonomy for the NHS, and if we make accountability transparent, rather than having constant interference from this place or from Richmond house.

Andrew Lansley: I do not have a figure for how many have been re-employed. The hon. Lady will know that under the process by which people agreed with the NHS to take resignation and, more recently, in voluntary redundancy terms, after six months there is an opportunity for people to take jobs-we are not depriving them permanently of the ability to take jobs. Indeed, one of the responsibilities of the commissioning consortia will be to find the best people, but we are doing that now. That is why we continue to make progress on the ground by the assignment of PCT staff to commissioning consortia and to local authorities, in order to ensure that they are beginning to take on their responsibilities.

Andrew Lansley: Yes, I agree. Indeed, in north-east Essex, the consortium under Dr Shane Gordon's leadership is doing exactly that. I personally think that leadership and listening are not mutually exclusive, and we are going to continue to do both.

David Evennett: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. Does he agree that reduced bureaucracy and better local scrutiny and accountability will ensure a better NHS for all?

Andrew Lansley: Yes, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. Locally, he can see how that is happening as GP leaders-including Dr Howard Stoate, whom Members will fondly remember, as the chair of the clinical cabinet in Bexley-are coming together to look at issues that the previous Government never dealt with, including those relating to the South London Healthcare NHS Trust and to Queen Mary's hospital in Sidcup. They are coming forward with proposals to improve services for local people, and I applaud that kind of clinical leadership.

Joan Ruddock: Before the general election, the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr Cameron) promised an extra 3,000 midwives. Has the Secretary of State noted the alarming rise in preventable maternal mortality? Would the Secretary of State not do better to deliver on his Prime Minister's promises and abandon his reckless reorganisation?

Gordon Birtwistle: The Secretary of State is aware that under the Labour Government, accident and emergency and children's services were transferred from Burnley to Blackburn. The transfer was opposed by the majority of GPs and 95% of the local community. It was supported only by the bureaucrats in the PCT and the SHA and by prima donna consultants. Will the Secretary of State confirm that under his new proposals that will never happen again and that such decisions will be taken only following full consultation and agreement with GPs and local communities, rather than being driven through as they were by the previous Government?

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. In Burnley and other places-I think not least of Maidstone-decisions were made in the past, under a Labour Government, that clearly did not meet the tests that we now apply, which are about public engagement, the support of the local authority, engagement with general practices leading commissioning, the clinical case and the responsiveness to patient choice. Those tests will be met in future. As we go through the painful process of examining how they are applied to the situations that we have inherited, on occasion we can say things to help colleagues, but sometimes we cannot.

Gerry Sutcliffe: It is not only the Health Secretary who cares about the NHS. Most people in the House support the NHS in their constituencies and the work that it carries out, but the mistakes that the Secretary of State has made-I hope he will admit that he has made mistakes by not listening-mean that there will already be costs to the health service because of the Bill. Will he publish an impact assessment of the costs to the health service so far of his failed policies?

Andrew Lansley: Yes. I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Our manifesto was clear that patients should be able to have access to a provider who gives them the best quality, be it the NHS, a private sector provider or a voluntary provider. That was in the Liberal Democrat manifesto and in the Labour manifesto. It is always about ensuring that that provider is properly qualified and that the basis of that choice is quality, not price. There cannot be a race to the bottom on price. We make it very clear in the legislation-it is important to set this out-that the commissioners of local services will also, through designating services, be able to ensure that where patients need services to be maintained and need continuity of services they can set that out themselves.

Clive Efford: "No decisions about us without us" could apply to every single person who works in the NHS who has been telling the Secretary of State that these are reckless changes. Throughout the country changes are taking place. Now he says that he is going to be listening. If so, we can anticipate some more changes. Will he therefore instruct everyone in the NHS who is currently restructuring on the basis of the Bill to stop that restructuring until we know exactly what the Government intend to do?

Margot James: The Leader of the Opposition stated his willingness to work with the Government on the NHS reforms. Does my right hon. Friend agree that a good place for him to start would be with a re-reading of his party's manifesto at the last election, which supported virtually every principle in our NHS Bill, with one important difference-it was without the additional funding to match?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. I am not sure which Labour party we would be expected to engage with-the one whose manifesto agreed with us, the one for which the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne spoke at a King's Fund meeting in January when he agreed with us, or the one that we saw in Committee, which opposed everything, tried to wreck the Bill and clearly has gone back to the Holborn and St Pancras view of the NHS.

Andrew Lansley: I am afraid the hon. Gentleman does not seem to understand that the public support the principles of the Bill. The public want patient choice. When they are exercising their choice over treatment, they want to be able to go to whoever is the best provider. Patients believe that general practitioners are the best people to design services and care on their behalf. Patients, the public and professionals support the principles of "no decision about me without me", focusing on outcomes and delivering an outcomes framework, and the devolution of responsibility. What we are talking about now is ensuring that other important principles, such as governance, accountability, transparency and multi-professional working, are genuinely supported by the structure of the Bill.

Alison McGovern: The Prime Minister's commission on the future of nursing and midwifery reported a year ago in March 2010. Of the 20 recommendations, all related to improving the quality of care in the NHS, which is my constituents' priority, not top-down reorganisation. During the pause that the Secretary of State has announced today, will the Government finally find time to respond to that important report?

Nicholas Dakin: I share and welcome the Secretary of State's commitment to reduce bureaucracy, so I am concerned to know why Monitor's budget is increasing by 600% over four years to police the marketisation of the NHS. Is that not poor value for money?

Andrew Lansley: The Government are introducing for the very first time a clear limitation and reduction on the running costs of the NHS. That will include the Department of Health, the arm's length bodies, the strategic health authorities and the primary care trusts-the whole shooting match. We will reduce those costs by more than a third in real terms. Monitor forms part of that. We have made it clear that its estimated total running costs will be between £50 million and £70 million. That is more than at present because its responsibilities will be considerably larger than they are at present.

Mike Hancock: As the Secretary of State will be aware, I chaired the majority of the Public Bill Committee's sittings. It was the longest Bill Committee for 12 years. During that time, more than 100 amendments were voted on in formal Divisions, and many hundreds of others were agreed to. If we are taking several months to look at this again, how on earth will the time be found to ensure that this House has enough time to scrutinise properly any changes, bearing in mind how much time has been spent on the Bill as it stands? I want an assurance, as I hope the whole House does, that we will be given sufficient time and that the Bill will not be steamrollered or bulldozed through the House.

Andrew Lansley: I do not think I dismiss anybody; I might not agree with people, but I do not dismiss them. If I recall correctly, I did not agree with the hon. Gentleman's suggestion because he misunderstood the fact that the consortia are separate statutory bodies, not private bodies, and separate from GP practices, which are individual contractors to the NHS. The confusion between those two things meant that his point was not valid.

Diana Johnson: Exactly how long with the natural break be, and how will we know whether the Secretary of State has listened?

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. My objective is to ensure that the statutory structure for the NHS moves on from one that had virtually no serious accountability. As Secretary of State, I could have done most of this without the legislation: I could have just abolished most of the primary care trusts and strategic health authorities. Previous Secretaries of State behaved in that cavalier fashion, but we are not doing that; we are giving Parliament the opportunity-a once-in-a-generation opportunity-to give the NHS greater autonomy and, in the process, to be transparent about the structure of accountability.

Nadhim Zahawi: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on engaging and listening. We have all received the 50 or so e-mail circulars from constituents who are concerned, but that does not reflect the evidence on the ground. GPs in Shipston in my constituency are absolutely passionate about the reforms and want to engage fully with them, as do 220 other groups-87% of the country. May I make a suggestion to the Secretary of State? Perhaps we should bring all those people who are passionate about this reform and want to take party politics out of it together with Labour Members on a platform so that we can take this forward without petty politics derailing a brilliant piece of legislation.

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Labour Members sit and laugh about this, but they ought to realise that 1 million patients a day visit their local general practice surgery. GPs across the country who have come together to form pathfinder consortia-87% of the country-are doing it on the basis that they can improve services for patients. I suspect that they understand the needs of their local community and patients better than many Labour Members, who are not listening to their GPs locally.

Grahame Morris: I would like to thank the Secretary of State for single-handedly destroying the Government's reputation on the NHS through this Bill. No amount of minor changes or slowing down of the pace will address the Bill's fundamental failure to protect the public from privatisation by stealth. If he refuses to resign, is he worthy of his nickname, Broken Arrow-he doesn't work and he can't be fired?

Toby Perkins: The Secretary of State, who tells us how much he studies the NHS, must know that the King's Fund tells us that under the Labour Government, Britain's NHS was the most efficient in the entire world. On that basis, a broad coalition of people, including health experts and the Liberal Democrats, is telling him that this policy is wrong. He apparently came here today to tell us why he is right and all those people are wrong. Is this a genuine consultation, or is it just a pause to get through the local elections before he does what he wants to do anyway?

Andrew Lansley: The hon. Gentleman is wrong on almost every count. We have seen a decade of declining productivity in the NHS. The Office for National Statistics and the National Audit Office set that out recently. We have seen an NHS that, despite record increases in funding, which are welcome, is still not meeting the best European cancer survival rates, as was made clear by the NAO. We need to improve the NHS. The Government are not discounting anybody's views on how we can best achieve that. In the spirit of continuous improvement in the NHS, there is a spirit of continuously listening about how to make that happen.

Dan Byles: Does the Secretary of State share my amazement that in recent months the Labour party seems to have U-turned on patient choice and on any willing provider, and does not appear to support putting clinicians in charge of commissioning health care? Its only policies seem to be "Save the PCTs", "Save the SHAs" and "Save NHS bureaucracy".

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Perhaps having increased the number of managers in the NHS by 70%, the Labour party thought that it would be swept to victory on the votes of NHS administrators. That did not happen. People in the NHS knew that waste, inefficiency and excess bureaucracy were not the way to deliver the best care for patients. That was Labour's way; it will not be our way.

Bill Esterson: Given that the Secretary of State will not instruct NHS managers to take a natural break in implementing his so-called reforms, does he understand why his intention to make changes after the natural break might be questioned? As colleagues have suggested, is the natural break just like every other Tory consultation-a sham?

Owen Paterson: With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the murder of Police Constable Ronan Kerr in Omagh on Saturday afternoon. Shortly before 4 pm, a device exploded, destroying his car in Highfield close, a quiet residential neighbourhood in the town: 25-year-old Constable Kerr died as a result of his injuries. I am sure that the whole House will join me in sending our deepest sympathies and heartfelt condolences to the family, friends and colleagues of this brave young officer. He was a local man who, having gained a university degree, decided upon a career in the Police Service of Northern Ireland. He dedicated his life to the service of the whole community; the terrorists who murdered him want to destroy that community. The contrast could not be clearer.
	These terrorists continue to target police officers and endanger the lives of the public. We all pay tribute to the PSNI and the Garda for their remarkable commitment and for their success in thwarting a number of recent attacks. Working seamlessly together, last year they charged 80 people with terrorist offences, compared with 17 in 2009. However, regrettably, on Saturday a device exploded, killing Constable Kerr. His murder was a revolting and cowardly act perpetrated by individuals intent on defying the wishes of the people.
	Following Saturday's attack, the PSNI immediately began a painstaking murder inquiry. The House will understand that that meticulous work is still in the early stages. I saw the Chief Constable yesterday and I know that the PSNI, working closely with the Garda Siochana, will not rest until these evil people are brought to justice. I reiterate in the strongest terms the Chief Constable's appeal for anyone with any information to bring it to the police.
	The PSNI has support from right across the community and is responsible to locally elected politicians. Just over a year ago, we strongly supported the previous Government's determination to devolve policing and justice, and we backed the very significant financial package that accompanied that devolution. After the election we endorsed proposals for a further £50 million for the PSNI, specifically to confront the terrorist threat. In the national security strategy, published last October, we made countering terrorist groups a tier 1 priority. We have agreed an exceptional £200 million of additional funding over four years, as requested by the Chief Constable, so that he can plan ahead with certainty.
	As the Prime Minister said on Saturday,
	"the British Government stands fully behind the Chief Constable and his officers as they work to protect Northern Ireland from terrorism".
	That cannot be done by a security response alone, crucial though that is. It can be resolved in the long term only by the community itself, together with strong leadership by local politicians. That leadership was evident again this morning when the First and Deputy First Ministers and the Justice Minister stood as one with the Chief Constable to reiterate their determination that these terrorists will never succeed. They all called for the active support of the PSNI. They spoke for the people of Northern Ireland, and their condemnation of this grotesque murder has been echoed in London, Dublin and Washington.
	Our clear and united message to these terrorists is that they will not destabilise the power-sharing institutions at Stormont, they will not deter young Catholic men and women from joining the police service, and they will not drag Northern Ireland back to the past.
	Thirteen years ago, the agreement was endorsed by overwhelming majorities in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. That was the true democratic voice of the people of Ireland, north and south. They, above all, will ensure that the terrorists fail. The visit of Her Majesty the Queen will shortly reinforce the fact that relations within these islands have never been stronger.
	Today, politics in Northern Ireland is stable. The democratic process is established. An Assembly has completed its first full term in decades. At the elections in May, voters will choose their politicians to serve in the new Assembly based on everyday bread-and-butter issues. That is democracy in action.
	Those who murdered police Constable Ronan Kerr fear democracy. The Omagh bomb in 1998 did not destroy the peace process. The terrorists failed then and they will fail now. They will not deflect us from our shared determination to build a peaceful, stable and prosperous Northern Ireland for everyone.
	In the powerful and moving words of Constable Kerr's mother yesterday:
	"We were so proud of Ronan and all that he stood for. Don't let his death be in vain."

Shaun Woodward: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. The House can only echo and underline the sincerity and unity with which the leaders of all Northern Ireland's political parties-nationalist, republican and Unionist-have spoken. The Opposition are part of that single voice, which reverberated around the world this weekend.
	We remember Constable Ronan Kerr with profound respect. Our hearts go out to his mother and family, and to the people of Omagh, for whom the brutal assassination reopens a deep wound. We think, too, of the police family of Northern Ireland, who today deeply mourn their colleague, but will be at work, the gravest risks to each no less, serving the community selflessly.
	The men and women of the PSNI do not see themselves as extraordinary, but in what we ask of them, in the gravest risks that they daily face, we know them as extraordinary. In his courage and service, Ronan Kerr exemplified that spirit. His commitment to working for one community-Protestant and Catholic-stands in absolute juxtaposition to the deluded and demonic deeds of those who targeted him.
	However futile their actions, those behind the psychotic acts of violence seek to bring fear and terror back to the streets of Northern Ireland. Constable Kerr was not an isolated target, nor was the attack random. His death is profoundly shocking, but an attack on a police officer is not a surprise.
	When the Belfast agreement was signed, as the head of MI5 acknowledged last year, we all hoped that the residual threat from terrorism in Northern Ireland would remain low and gradually decline. Regrettably, optimism must give way to realism. The threat is not low: today it is severe. It is more serious today than in nearly 15 years and it is ongoing. A serious terrorist incident was attempted almost every week last year-a dramatic and regrettable escalation on previous years. Those people have improved capacity, increasingly sophisticated technical and engineering capability, and they aspire to extend their reach.
	Today's terrorists may have little or no community support, but we make a grave mistake if we do not recognise that, in addition to those who refused to accept the peace agenda, a new generation is growing up, delusionally embracing a new wave of criminal and deadly violence. Their numbers grow significantly. Bordering on psychotic, their ambition is to instil fear through attempted bombings and murders. Their aspirations extend beyond Northern Ireland to Britain.
	Excepting national security, responsibility today for policing and justice is devolved to Stormont. However, devolution does not absolve us at Westminster of our broader responsibilities to the people of Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State recently succeeded in persuading the Treasury to provide additional resources from the reserve. He is to be congratulated on that. That, of course, was before this attack.
	If the Chief Constable should require-to fulfil the ongoing demands of community policing for the public and, of course, for the safety of his officers-further additional resources for overtime, forensics, vehicles and other items to meet the threat, will the Secretary of State reassure the House that they will be agreed and made available without delay?
	To tackle today's threat, we must ensure that we not only contain the existing terrorists, but do all we can to stop alienated young people being drawn into that pattern of crime. The Secretary of State will know of the work of Co-operation Ireland, which is urgently seeking additional financial support for its critical work from, among others, the British Government. He knows the former deputy Chief Constable, Peter Sheridan, who leads that work. The organisation has made cutting-edge proposals, tackling the sectarian legacy but also dealing with real problems in the present. Will the Secretary of State consider the proposals sympathetically and renew his support for additional funding with the Chancellor?
	The Home Secretary raised the threat level in Great Britain last September. To ensure that we are guided not by optimism, but by realism, will the Secretary of State reassure the House that the Government will learn from not only the mistakes that we made in the past, but the security measures that we got right?
	Will the Secretary of State confirm that he is satisfied from discussions with the Home Secretary that here in Britain police forces have and will continue to have the resources they need to address the threat appropriately? Will he also confirm that, at all levels of Government, there is no complacency? Prevention should be our guide.
	On national security, and if we are to learn, as the head of MI5 said, from "the pattern of history", will the Secretary of State tell the House that he is fully satisfied with the co-operation between the PSNI and forces here in Britain, including on timely and comprehensive sharing of information?
	Without capability, the threat from terrorists will be significantly contained. Those who supply the criminals must also be brought to justice. Will the Secretary of State confirm that anyone involved today or in the past in the supply of weapons or explosives will not be given immunity from prosecution? Will he confirm that, should the PSNI wish to conduct interviews with any foreign nationals currently in Britain, the Government would immediately help facilitate that?
	Hon. Members will have seen the statement that Constable Kerr's mother made on television last night. Yesterday was mothering Sunday. When so many sons and daughters remembered what their mothers had given for them, Constable Kerr's mother, in her darkest hours of grief, shared with our country what her precious son meant to her and her family. We all have a duty to ensure that Ronan's death will not be in vain. Let us be judged on what we now do.

Owen Paterson: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments and support, which send a strong signal across the world that the House is united on the issue.
	The right hon. Gentleman mentioned contingency. We have made it clear that, as under the arrangements that he fixed with the Executive at the time, should the threat increase, we are prepared to consider the reserve, but let us look at what we have done. We confirmed £50 million last year and got an exceptional £200-million programme agreed this year for the next four years. Today, the Chief Constable said:
	"We have the resources, we have the resilience and we have the commitment."
	As I said in the statement, we are supportive of work with community groups, and I spoke to the chairman of Co-operation Ireland this morning. We will consider a range of alternatives because, as I made clear, there is not just a security solution.
	My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has made counter-terrorism a priority, and budgets are protected. I am absolutely confident that there is increasing and improved co-ordination between the PSNI and GB-based forces. She came to Belfast to discuss that with the Chief Constable a few months ago.
	Finally, I assure the right hon. Gentleman that no immunity has been given to anyone. If he were present for the statement from my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, he would have heard him say quite clearly that Musa Kusa is not being offered any immunity from British or international justice. He also said during his statement that we believe in the rule of law.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Mr Speaker: Order. This is a matter of the utmost gravity, which is being treated as such by the Secretary of State and the shadow Secretary of State. However, I hope the House will understand when I remind Members of the very heavy pressures upon time, the further Government statement to follow and an Opposition day debate. Therefore, brevity from Back Bench and Front alike from now on is vital, and it will be enforced if necessary from the Chair. It is no good Members saying, "Ah, but the point I had to make was important." They are all important, but we must make progress, and I cannot guarantee accommodating everybody.

Owen Paterson: I am grateful to the Chairman of the Select Committee for his comments and for the Committee's support on this issue. We are quite clear that there are now mechanisms for everyone in Northern Ireland to pursue their legitimate political ambitions by peaceful, democratic means. There is absolutely no excuse, and no place for violence that is in theory for a political cause.

Nigel Dodds: Our sympathies and prayers are with the Kerr family at this terrible time. I spoke to Mrs Kerr yesterday in her family home. Her courage and bravery, and that of her son Ronan, stand in stark contrast to the cowardly callousness of those who murdered him. At this time, does the Secretary of State agree that the best answer, as I said at Prime Minister's questions only last Wednesday, is for the people of Northern Ireland to stand together, as they are standing together, as one community, to reject these men of violence, and to keep Northern Ireland moving forward? That is the clear, united voice coming from Northern Ireland and this House today, and Ronan's death will not be in vain.

Owen Paterson: I wholeheartedly concur with the right hon. Gentleman's comments. For Mrs Kerr, yesterday afternoon, under those circumstances, on mothers day, to welcome politicians to her house and to come out after that to make the statement that she made, was a quite remarkable moment. We all owe it to her to do exactly as the right hon. Gentleman says-to rally round together. I encourage everyone to participate, campaign and vote in the coming elections in Northern Ireland, to show that that is the way for Northern Ireland to progress.

Owen Paterson: I wholeheartedly concur with the hon. Lady's comments. Her party has a proud record of pursuing its political ambitions by democratic means through the most difficult times. She asked about the security services. I shall repeat the comments of Lord Carlile, who is an independent assessor of these matters:
	"MI5 and the PSNI are working very closely together and one really could not have more work being done and more energetically to try and deal with what is a very difficult threat".

Owen Paterson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that strong comment. I entirely concur with what he said about Mrs Kerr, and I remind everyone of what she said yesterday.
	"We all need to stand up and be counted and to strive for equality...We don't want to go back into the dark days again of fear and terror."

Naomi Long: May I add my sincere sympathies to those expressed by the Secretary of State to the family, colleagues and friends of Constable Ronan Kerr. I also add to the Secretary of State's call to those who have information that could lead to those who perpetrated the attack being brought to justice. Their destructive and murderous attack is in stark contrast to the constructive role that the PSNI plays in our community in trying to build for the future.
	Does the Secretary of State agree that this was an attempt to drive young Catholics out of the PSNI, and to drive a wedge between it and the community? Does he agree that the best way to avoid that is for us to stand shoulder to shoulder with those police officers and give them our full support?

Owen Paterson: I am very grateful for the hon. Lady's supportive comments. She rightly paid tribute to the Kerr family. I again quote Mrs Kerr, who yesterday said:
	"I urge all Catholic members not to be deterred".
	I do not believe that they will be.

Owen Paterson: My hon. Friend gives me an excellent opportunity to confirm that to my knowledge there is overwhelming support for the legitimate institutions and for the legitimate, peaceful parties-I cite as an example the minute's silence at the Gaelic Athletics Association game yesterday in Tyrone, which is a very strong republican area. There is absolutely no place for political violence in Northern Ireland.

Paul Goggins: May I also join the Secretary of State in extending my deepest sympathy to Mrs Kerr and her family? Does he share my concern that, more than two years on, those who were charged with the murder of Constable Stephen Carroll are still to come to trial? Will he take this opportunity to voice his strong support for Minister Ford's efforts to speed up the justice system in Northern Ireland, so that those who go out to murder police officers will be reminded not only that they will be caught, but that if they are convicted they will spend most if not the whole of the rest of their lives in prison?

Owen Paterson: I thank my hon. Friend for that question and I am happy to put on the record my wholehearted congratulations-I touched on this in my statement-of the work not just of the PSNI but of the Garda Siochana, who are working extremely closely. I think we should pay tribute to the co-operation we are getting from the Dublin Government, from both parties. I have talked to Eamon Gilmore-the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Tanaiste-and to Alan Shatter, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Defence. Today, I also talked to Martin Callinan, the Commissioner, and I confirm that we are working extremely closely. My hon. Friend is right that there has been a succession of events, week after week; I would not want to comment today on whether they are linked to this one, but we are determined to work together and bear down on these dangerous people.

Owen Paterson: On police numbers, we have contributed major extra funds this year, as requested by the Chief Constable. I repeat what he said today:
	"We have the resources, we have the resilience and we have the commitment."
	How he divides up the funds that have been provided to him and the Justice Minister are a matter for him. Those are operational matters and not for me to answer from here.

Owen Paterson: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. I entirely endorse his comments about Constable Kerr, who could have pursued another career. He had a university degree in a totally separate subject but he decided to work in his community for the benefit of the community. I entirely endorse the hon. Gentleman's comments about the behaviour of local politicians and local parties. The election campaign of the next few weeks is a glorious opportunity to rebut everything that these violent terrorists stand for. The election should be entirely about day-to-day issues. As I have said, I encourage every voter to participate and turn out. I encourage them to put these people in their place and show them that they have absolutely no representation or support anywhere in the community in Northern Ireland.

Owen Paterson: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's question. To put it bluntly, they will not succeed, but one has to ask what on earth they think they achieved by ending this bright young man's career just as it began.

Owen Paterson: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his question. We have had unstinting support from both parties in Washington and I was touched that Hillary Clinton, given everything else that is going on in the world, put out a very strong statement condemning this "cowardly act", which she said represented the "failures of the past". She said that the perpetrators' actions
	"run counter to the achievements, aspirations and collective will of the people of Northern Ireland".
	I spoke to Congressman King last night, who is the chairman of the Friends of Ireland group. He, too, has put out an extremely strong statement, which we all welcome.

Steve Webb: With your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a short statement about state pensions. The coalition has already taken steps to support current pensioners by reintroducing the earnings link for the basic state pension. Indeed, we went one step further with our triple guarantee, which will mean that a pensioner retiring today can expect to receive about £15,000 more in basic pension over the life of their retirement. However, the pensioners of tomorrow face a new landscape. With longevity continuing to increase, future pensioners can expect to work for longer and they may not have the same levels of housing equity. They are less likely to have the certainty of a final salary pension and from 2012 we will introduce a new system of automatic enrolment into workplace pensions.
	Today, the Government are publishing a consultation document, which looks at whether the existing pensions system is suitable for meeting the challenges of the future. This Green Paper marks the next step in the coalition's plan to create a system that is fair and simple for pensioners and that rewards those people who do the right thing and take responsibility for their future. It is right that we ask people to take responsibility for their retirement by saving over the course of their working lives, but it is also right that the Government should play their part by ensuring that we support those who make the right choices for their future and those of their families.
	If we want to encourage pension saving, the key is getting the state pension system right. The current system has been in a sort of permanent evolution for decades, which means that planning for retirement is fiendishly complex. The Green Paper sets out two options for reform, neither of which involves spending more money on future pensioners than has already been forecast through the existing system. The key is to spend the money we have better. The objective is clear: to move to a simple, contributory state pension system that provides flat-rate support above the level of the means-tested guarantee credit, which would be easy to understand, efficient to deliver and provide a firm foundation for further saving.
	The first option involves bringing forward existing reforms so that the state pension would evolve into a two-tier, flat rate system more quickly. The second, more radical, option is to move to a single-tier state pension. Both options are for future pensioners; pensioners who have already reached state pension age by the date of reform would not be affected, so no existing recipient of state pension would see their income reduced. For future pensioners, we would also continue to honour the contributions that people have built up to the date of reform. The option of a single-tier state pension would be a marked improvement on the current system, which is dogged by complexity and confusion. During the transition, many would receive their single-tier pension from a combination of their state and contracted-out scheme, as happens now, which means that they would receive less than the currently estimated £140 directly from their state pension.
	Let me give hon. Members an idea of just how confusing the present UK pension system is for the average person. The Pensions Commission has described it as one of the most complex in the world and a departmental survey on attitudes to pensions found that barely one in four people agreed that
	"they knew enough about pensions to decide with confidence about how to save for retirement."
	Worse still, few people have a clear idea of what their state pension will be worth when they retire. Critically, the current system actually discourages some people from putting anything aside; the mass reliance on means-tested benefits leaves people unsure whether they will benefit from the savings they make. Automatic enrolment into workplace pensions with employer contributions are due to start from next year, so we need to give people more clarity and certainty about what they will get from the state, thereby giving them a firm foundation for decisions about saving to fund their retirement.
	For women, the low-paid and the self-employed, the state pension system can produce unfair outcomes. As a result, people in those broad groups are far more likely to have poorer state pensions, which we will address. Under a single-tier state pension, for example, the self-employed would be able to build up as good a state pension as anyone else. They stand to gain around £1.40 a week of state pension for every year of national insurance contributions that they make, up to a maximum of 30 years. That could provide them with a state pension of around £140 a week, instead of the current rate of £97. Currently, less than 50% of women in their late 40s or early 50s are expected to get £140 a week from state pension income in retirement. Our proposals would address that. We are clear that reform on this scale could take many years to deliver, but the prize-providing clarity to savers and all those planning for their retirement -is a real one.
	There are two other, related issues. The Government recognise that means-tested benefits play an important role in targeting support where it is needed most and provide an essential safety net for the most vulnerable. However, means-tested benefits add to complexity and can be a real disincentive to saving for many people. Therefore, in addition to consulting on the two state pension options that I have briefly mentioned, the Green Paper seeks views on whether the current system of means-tested support would best meet the needs of future pensioners. On the state pension age, as life expectancy projections continue to be revised upwards, we also have a responsibility to ensure that the pensions system is sustainable and that the costs of increasing longevity are shared fairly between the generations. Therefore, as well as reforms to the state pension, we are consulting on the most appropriate mechanism for determining future changes to the state pension age.
	As the coalition addresses those issues, I shall be seeking as many views and contributions to the debate as possible. We shall be asking all interested parties-hon. Members, employers, pension providers, members of the public and specialists-to work with us to ensure that we deliver the state pension system that the people of this country deserve. If we want future generations to take responsibility for their retirement, we need to deliver a simpler and fairer state pension system that acts as a foundation for people to build up to a decent income in retirement. Fairer, simpler systems that reward people who do the right thing and take personal responsibility for themselves and their families-these are precisely the same themes that run through the welfare reforms being implemented by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, from the universal credit to the Work programme.
	With the Welfare Reform Bill we have set out how the coalition will transform working-age benefits to make work pay and tackle the root causes of poverty and welfare dependency, but we also need people to save for their retirement. We need automatic enrolment and employer contributions to work. With today's Green Paper we are setting out how we plan to transform the pensions system and create a simple, decent state pension that is easy to understand and efficient to administer. We need to ensure that saving for the future pays. I am proud to be part of this bold, reforming agenda. Today's Green Paper is a step on the road to a radical reform of the state pension system, and I commend this paper to the House.

Rachel Reeves: I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement-half an hour before he got to his feet. Given that the pensions Minister and the Secretary of State chose to announce the most positive elements of the Green Paper to the media over the weekend, I cannot help feeling that I am the only person who still has not seen it. Today we have heard proposals that include a universal flat-rate pension and further increases in the state pension age. Although in principle the move to a more simplified system is welcome, it raises a number of important questions.
	The Labour Government recognised the importance of pension reform. Labour made great inroads, particularly in lifting more than 1 million pensioners out of poverty and in recognising the vital role that people-mainly women-play as carers. The Labour Government reduced the number of years needed to qualify for a basic state pension to 30, helping women, while more generous credits for carers have ensured that more people are now entitled to a higher level of the state second pension. Labour also introduced automatic enrolment, helping the up to 8 million people who previously did not put money aside for their pensions to save. Although we welcome the fact that the Government are continuing with automatic enrolment, we disagree with the watering down of some of those proposals.
	Previous changes to the state pension mean that, based on new accrual rates and assuming 30 years of national insurance contributions or caring credits, a low-paid woman or someone in a caring role would be entitled to a basic state pension of £102.15 a week, plus £43.50 in the state second pension, totalling £145.65 a week, or more if she had 40 years of contributions. The figure of £140 a week that the Minister set out must be seen in that context. Pensioners and families must assess the proposals carefully to ensure that they are not worse off than they would have been under Labour's plans. Can the Minister give some reassurances about the other benefits that pensioners receive, including free TV licences, prescriptions, eye tests, support with council tax, bus passes, the winter fuel allowance and cold weather payments? In the Budget we saw a cut in the winter fuel allowance, despite rising energy prices and two successive cold winters. Will the Minister explain how he will account for those benefits in the new system, or say whether we will see further cuts, by stealth or otherwise?
	I have a few brief questions about affordability and fairness. The Chancellor announced in his Budget that the reforms would cost no more than the current system, yet the Pensions Policy Institute estimates that a flat-rate pension at a guaranteed credit level will cost almost 1% of GDP after 13 years. That must imply that although some will be better off under the Government's plans, some will also be worse off. The Minister has spoken eloquently about the potential winners, but the distributional impacts are critical, so will he confirm who will be worse off under the new proposed system?
	On fairness, the Minister has said that accrued rights will be protected. Forgive me for being a bit sceptical, but he said the same about the switch in uprating from the retail prices index to the consumer prices index. However, in this instance I will give him the benefit of the doubt. Can he guarantee that someone in their 50s who has worked all their life on average earnings and has never contracted out of the state second pension will still be entitled to a more generous state pension than someone who has not paid in? If not, does he think it fair that those contracting out and getting defined benefit pensions in retirement could receive the same state pension as their counterparts who have paid full national insurance contributions throughout their careers? If those who have paid in get more than £140, will the change really be cost-neutral? If some will get less than £140 based on lower contributions, will the Minister ensure that no one falls below the guaranteed credit level? In what way can that be called a flat-rate pension?
	The Government's proposals could have serious implications for the future of defined benefit schemes, because they will end the rebate for those on DB schemes. Given the importance of occupational savings for retirement income, as the Minister said, what are his estimates of the generosity of DB schemes-and, indeed, their overall survival-given the changes? The changes in contracting-out touch on a wider point. The post-world war welfare state is based on the contributory principle. We welcome the news that any new flat-rate system will keep contributions at their core, and that anyone with 30 years' national insurance contributions will be entitled to the newly formulated pension. However, given the Chancellor's announcement that the Government intend to merge tax and national insurance, will the Minister explain how the contributory principle will work in practice if that merger takes place? Will he also give a reassurance that taxes will not go up for pensioners, who of course do not pay national insurance?
	The other, less briefed elements of today's Green Paper include the automatic mechanism for increasing the state pension age to make future increases fair and smooth, with time for people to plan. The move comes too late for the 500,000 women who will have to wait a year longer before they receive their state pension and the 33,000 women who will have to wait exactly two years before receiving their state pension. Does the Minister now recognise that the accelerated timetable for the state pension age for women in their 50s does not spread the cost fairly or, with just five years' notice, leave enough time to prepare?
	To conclude, the Green Paper does nothing for today's pensioners, because a flat-rate pension will be for only new pensioners. Today's pensioners are suffering at the hands of this Government, with an increase in VAT to 20%, which sees pensioners worse off by £200 a year, low savings rates and a £100 cut in the winter fuel allowance. Although a flat-rate pension of £140 sounds good in theory, the Chancellor says that there is no new money, so who will lose out? It is quite likely to be families on average earnings, or just a bit more, who have worked hard and brought up a family, paying their full national insurance contributions. Some people will be worse off under the reforms, yet the Government want to talk about only the winners. In the final chapter of the review, the Government suggested that a crude formula could be used for uprating the state pension age. They have already hit women in their late 50s with a two-year increase in their state pension age; now they want to use a formula that pays no attention to health in later life, so we will all be waiting longer and longer to get our pensions.
	We welcome the intent behind today's Green Paper. We want a more progressive and less complicated system, but I am yet to be convinced that today's Green Paper will achieve that.

Steve Webb: I did write the hon. Lady's words down-in principle, she welcomed the Green Paper, so I am grateful for her warm comments about our proposals. She asked a number of specific questions, and I shall try to respond to them.
	The hon. Lady seemed to imply that women would get £145 anyway, so wondered why we needed to do anything. That, however, is decades away. Equality between men and women in the state pension system is decades away, and we think that is too slow. Many women who did their child rearing in the '80s and '90s got no state second pension protection because it did not exist at that time. They will be retiring over the coming years and we are now bringing forward that protection for them. We do not want to wait 20 years for equality.
	The hon. Lady asked an important question about passported benefits and we will need to consider the implications of these changes for those benefits. She had the cheek to suggest that the winter fuel payment had been cut in comparison with what she would have provided if she were in office. She will be well aware that we are sticking precisely to the budgets that her right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), the former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, wrote. He will know perfectly well how much he put aside for the winter fuel payments, and we are doing exactly what he planned.
	The hon. Lady asked about the Pensions Policy Institute and its estimate that a £140 flat-rate pension would cost 1% of gross domestic product. What she may have misunderstood from the report is that the question it asked was what it would cost if that amount were paid to everybody. That is where its figure came from. We are saying that we will create this for new pensioners, because new pensioners face a new world in which they will work longer, retire later and have fewer final salary pension schemes, so we need a system that is fit for them.
	The hon. Lady sought reassurance on two points and the answer is yes to both of them. We will honour past service and we will make an adjustment, as I said in my statement, for contracted-out periods.
	The hon. Lady asked about the future of final salary pension schemes after 13 years of decline under Labour. She will be pleased to know that the National Association of Pension Funds-the trade body for company pensions -welcomes these reforms and supports them, but we are in dialogue with those operating large final salary pension schemes to discuss how these changes will impact on them and how we can work with them to move towards the sort of simpler scheme that they and we want to see.
	The hon. Lady asked about merging what the Chancellor referred to as the operation of the tax and national insurance system, which is certainly at an exploratory stage, but he has made it clear that pensions will be protected under these changes and that the contributory principle will remain.
	Finally, the hon. Lady asked about the mechanism for raising the state pension age. She referred to a crude formula, but there are options in the Green Paper. One is to have an automatic mechanism for raising the pension age as longevity increases; the other is to adopt a more nuanced approach to take account of a range of factors. We would welcome feedback on that.
	Overall, I think the hon. Lady welcomed our proposals, particularly the fact that they will benefit women and self-employed people and will lead to a fairer system. She said that she wanted to see a fairer system; in office, the Labour Government never delivered one, but through this Green Paper, we will.

Oliver Heald: In welcoming the statement and the Green Paper, I congratulate the Minister on achieving a long-held ambition in the pensions world of creating much more certainty and transparency about the state pension system so as to encourage saving in the longer term, as well as on helping the more vulnerable groups he mentioned, such as women, who will get help that much earlier. Will he say more about the time scale? He talked about the long distance we still have to go before achieving justice for women, so what improvement will these changes bring and what is the Minister's time scale?

Anne Begg: I was listening hard to the Minister's reply to the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), and I noticed that he provided no examples, in response to her request, of those who would be worse off as a result of these changes. There must be some losers. Presumably, they will include the group who enjoy pension credit now, but have not paid enough contributions to justify the new flat-rate pension. What will happen to that group? As for women, surely if they have not made the contributions, they will not be any better off than they are now.

Steve Webb: I am grateful to the Select Committee Chair for her questions. To be clear on the role of pension credit, we envisage that there will have to be a safety net under any system, and the Green Paper provides for consultation about what exactly that might look like. There will still be a guaranteed credit type system-a floor below which people cannot fall. In a single-tier pension world, the savings credit would no longer be necessary for new pensioners. In other words, the savings credit was invented by the previous Government to deal with the fact that 100% marginal tax rates were paid on any saving. Because we are not doing that any more, we will not need the savings credit for new pensioners, which helps to pay for the reform. It is less means-testing, more universal pension.
	The hon. Lady rightly mentions the position of women and my point is that women under the current system, who often did their child rearing before the state second pension was introduced, have no protection at all, whereas they have basic pension protection. Under a single-tier world, they get protection at the full rate, so they will benefit from the reforms we are introducing.

Simon Hughes: My hon. Friend the Pensions Minister has not only introduced the link between pensions and earnings, for which pensioners have been calling for years, but now makes a clear bid to be the most popular Pensions Minister for decades, in announcing the option of the citizens pension for which he and I have campaigned for ever. It is clearly fairer, simpler and particularly helpful to women and the self-employed. I urge my hon. Friend to be as bold and reforming as he suggests option 2 would allow. I urge him to go fully through the consultation process, but when midsummer's day arrives-the last day of the consultation-I urge him to go for the single tier state pension so that this Government's legacy for pensioners will be as radical in this century as the legacy of Lloyd George and Beveridge was for pensioners in the last.

Steve Webb: My right hon. Friend puts me on the spot, but I am glad to respond positively. I have noted his comments down as being the first response to my consultation, making it 1-0 for the single-tier option-I will keep score as we go. He is right that the restoration of the earnings link after 30 years of breaking it is an historic event, although it has been rather overshadowed by other events in the world. We think someone retiring this year will, over the years, get an extra £15,000 in basic state pension through the restoration of the link. That is a real firm foundation for today's pensioners as well as reform for tomorrow's. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend in respect of the liberal heritage and to my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Chancellor for their encouragement for the proposal to move forward.

Malcolm Wicks: It is humbling to follow a question from a "for ever" Member of Parliament.
	May I ask about the mechanism for determining future changes to state pension age? Could this mechanism please allow for occupational and social class differences in terms of life expectancy? If we look at men who work in what are called routine occupations, such as van drivers, cleaners and labourers, we see that almost a fifth of them-19%, I believe-die before they receive the state pension at 65. If we keep raising the state pension age without allowing for those people who have been working since they were 15 or 16, we will certainly bring insensitivity into the system.

Steve Webb: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who brings great knowledge of these issues to the House. He raises a vital point. Although it is true that life expectancy across the social classes has been improving, which is entirely to be welcomed, there are still very significant differences. One suggested option in the Green Paper is that the review mechanism should take account of a wide range of factors of the very sort that he mentioned. It is possible to have a too formulaic or automatic approach, but the right hon. Gentleman will have noted that the Chancellor referred in the Budget to a "more automatic" approach, taking systematic account of increases in life expectancy, but potentially of other factors such as those that he mentioned.

Nigel Dodds: We welcome the Green Paper and the consultation that will ensue. We agree that moving away from means-testing and complexity towards a universal flat-rate pension is greatly to be welcomed. The Minister says that this will not entail spending any more money. Given that so many pensioners today do not claim all the means-tested benefits to which they are entitled-this is a big factor in these reforms and should again be welcomed-does it not mean that more money will need to be spent to make up for the fact that people do not claim? If so, will the Minister guarantee that that money will be provided?

Frank Field: It is difficult to think of any statement that could be more important than one that commits a Government to paying a state pension above means-tested assistance level. The importance of this statement-which I welcome-stems from the fact that the income of many pensioners is below that level. Even if we take into account those who do not claim means-tested help, a large price tag will be attached to this reform. Will the Minister consider the contribution made by taxpayers through pension tax relief, which favours the wealthy over those who earn least, as one way of financing it?

Steve Webb: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his welcome for the proposed system. It will be financed on a cost-neutral basis within the system: we will spend less money on means-testing and, for instance, savings credit, we will withdraw some of the very small payments that we currently make to people who do not even live in this country, and we will remove some of the highest accruals for the highest earners. We therefore do not need to involve tax relief. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, the Government have refined the previous Government's plans, so tax relief will be less concentrated on the highest earners, but we have no further plans to change tax relief.

Steve Webb: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is a clear link between the major reforms that the Department is introducing for people of working age and those that it is introducing for those who will reach pension age in the future. "It pays to work" and "it pays to save" must be the right combination.
	My hon. Friend asked about pensioners' savings. In a world in which we will enrol people in workplace savings, we need them to be confident that they will be better off when they save, and that is one of the specific purposes of the reforms. If my hon. Friend wishes to raise any further points, I will certainly respond to them.

Steve Webb: We are not changing the system for current pensioners at all. It will continue as previously budgeted. As for new pensioners, we need to think what paying a pension above the guarantee credit implies for passported benefits, and what sort of system we need. I should be interested to hear people's ideas, because the issue is important. Hitherto, we have simply assumed that pension credit means poverty and that we must therefore make all the extra payments. We may need a more sophisticated system now, but the role of passported benefits is important, and I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising it.

Steve Webb: The hon. Gentleman has raised an important point about people's ability to afford to save. One of the key aspects of automatic enrolment is the fact that an employee's contribution will trigger an employer contribution of nearly as much, plus tax relief. If an employee contributes 4% of his salary, the employer's contribution will raise that to 8%, so this is a very affordable form of saving. Of course we want to ensure that people who make such sacrifices in order to save will be better off as a result, and our reforms will make that outcome far more likely than it is at present.

Hywel Williams: Plaid Cymru has long campaigned for a living pension, and we welcome the Government's single tier proposals. The current system does not ensure an adequate income for all pensioners. As Jackie Ashley wrote in today's  Guardian,
	"On this issue of complexity Labour in power got it wrong, and should admit it."
	However, does the Minister accept that on the accelerated equalisation of state pension age, the Government are in some danger of getting it badly wrong for about half a million women in their late 50s? What assurances can he give about that?

Steve Webb: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for expressing support for the proposal of the single tier on behalf of the Welsh nationalists. As for the issue of state pension ages, the Green Paper involves moves beyond the pension age of 66. The issue raised by the hon. Gentleman will be dealt with in the Pensions Bill, which will be presented to this House shortly, but, beyond that, we are trying to establish a more automatic mechanism that takes account of changes in life expectancy and, perhaps, of other factors as well, such as notice periods-which is, I think, the issue that he has raised-in a more systematic way than we or other Governments have done so far.

Jim Shannon: There is some good stuff in what the Minister has said, but every week my office-and, probably, the office of every other Member of Parliament in the United Kingdom-receives queries about small works pensions. Although they amount to a pittance, they remove people's eligibility for benefits. Will the Minister assure us that such people will not be disadvantaged?

Yvette Cooper: I beg to move,
	That this House notes the Association of Chief Police Officers' statement that there will be 12,000 fewer police officers because of the Government's cuts to central government funding for the police; considers that chief constables across England and Wales are being put in an impossible position by the Government's 20 per cent. cut to central government funding; notes that Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) said the police budget could be reduced 'at best' by 12 per cent. and that 'a cut beyond 12 per cent. would almost certainly reduce police availability'; further notes that HMIC has said that 95 per cent. of police officers do not work in back office roles; regrets that because of the Government's 20 per cent. cut frontline police officers are being lost in every region of England and in Wales; is deeply concerned by recent statements from police forces and authorities that show the level of cuts being forced upon them by the Government, amounting to 1,158 police officers in the South West, 1,428 police officers in the South East, 1,215 police officers in the East of England, 579 police officers in Wales, 783 police officers in the East Midlands, 1,573 police officers in the West Midlands, 573 in the North East, 3,175 in the North West, 1,242 in Yorkshire and the Humber and 1,200 in London; calls on the Government to think again; and rejects the cuts to frontline police officers the Government is forcing upon police forces.
	We come to this debate rather later than any of us had expected, and I congratulate those Members who have managed to sit through all four statements and an urgent question in order to be present for it.
	This debate offers a chance for the House to reflect on the full scale of the cuts in policing the Home Secretary agreed and announced last October, a chance for Members on both sides of the House to consider what this means for their constituents, and a chance to urge the Home Secretary to pause and think again, because if Government Ministers can do that for trees and for hospitals, then this is her moment. It is time the Government stopped to think about the damage they are doing to the nation's policing before it is too late.

Yvette Cooper: In fact, at the time of the election unemployment was falling, the economy was growing and borrowing was lower than expected, whereas nearly 12 months on we have seen borrowing come in higher than expected, unemployment continue to rise and growth stall. The hon. Gentleman should, perhaps, consider those points when he thinks about the impact these foolish decisions are having on public services.
	I was contacted last week by a local beat officer from the west midlands, and I want to read out what he said about the job he did:
	"When I arrived it was a run-down, deprived area frequented by pimps, prostitutes, druggies and drug dealers. By working with the community we were able to change it into an area where the residents were happy to walk the streets at all times of the day and night. Crime was reduced and the feel-good factor returned. The local community saw me every day. If I wasn't there, they would phone me. I was able to rebuild trust and confidence in the police. I was the single point of reference for them.
	In 2010 I was awarded the 'coppers' copper award' by the Police Federation...this spoke of my professionalism and dedication. Now I am being forced out and will not be replaced. Residents are up in arms and have even started a petition to keep me. These people know that in a very short space of time"
	their area
	"will return to what it used to be and they are frightened.
	I believe I am good value for money...My presence prevents crime and antisocial behaviour. It makes people feel good. I'm totally devastated to be leaving as I feel that I have a number of good years in front of me doing the job I'm good at. I took an oath in 1979 and have stuck to it. Ultimately the people who will suffer are the public."
	Those are the words of one beat officer in the west midlands, who is at the sharp end. That is what it is really like on the front line of the Government's 20% cuts in policing, and there is much more such evidence from across the country.

Yvette Cooper: The hon. Lady chose not to comment on the more than 100 police officers being lost from the Wiltshire force, as well as the more than 100 support jobs being lost from that force. I look forward to seeing her put that in her leaflet for the next election. As I have already pointed out, at the time of the election borrowing was, in fact, lower than expected and unemployment was falling. By cutting too far, too fast, the hon. Lady's party is going to make it harder to cut the deficit, with more people on the dole and more spent on unemployment benefit.
	From Nottinghamshire, another officer writes:
	"Since 2006 when I took this office road casualties have fallen by 33%...that's saved over £90 million in costs...I haven't achieved this by myself for sure but we've contributed massively to that effort and now they want to get rid of me."
	Hampshire police have been forced to cut their domestic violence units. In Lancashire, they are reducing air-support cover. In Dorset, they are cutting traffic policing by 33%. In north Wales, they have cut back on the handlers and sniffer dogs for explosives. In the west midlands, neighbourhood policing teams are being lost.

Stephen Barclay: rose-

Claire Perry: rose -

Yvette Cooper: All the figures we have seen and released have come either from chief constables, police forces or police authorities. That is also where the figures of 12,500 fewer officers and 15,000 fewer support staff have come from. I know that Ministers have repeatedly refused to acknowledge those figures, but I hope they will take the opportunity of today's debate to admit that police officer posts are being cut across the country. That is what happens when you cut too far, too fast. Of course the police can make efficiency savings; they should strive to do more and do better, and should make savings in procurement, on overtime and by changing the way they do things. That does mean cuts to their budgets, but by forcing cuts of 20%, with the steepest cuts occurring in the first two years so that there is no time to adjust and plan, the Government have lost any sense of balance and any grip on the reality of what such cuts will mean for communities across the country.

Theresa May: The right hon. Lady is making a lot out of the issue of police numbers. What would she say to Chief Constable Peter Fahy from Greater Manchester, who in January said to the Home Affairs Committee:
	"The other issue has been political-if I can say it-almost an obsession with the number of police officers, which meant that we've kept that number artificially high. We have had lots of police officers doing administrative posts just to hit that number."?

Yvette Cooper: As the Home Secretary will know, chief constables have been put in an impossible position. They are rightly trying to do everything they can to deliver strong policing within the budgets they have been given and to reassure the communities for which they have to provide services, but the rug is being pulled from underneath them. If the Home Secretary now believes that police numbers are artificially too high and higher than they ought to be, she is the first Conservative Home Secretary in history to say that the problem with the police force is that police numbers are too high.
	The right hon. Lady referred to chief constables. Chief Constable Steve Finnigan of the Lancashire constabulary, who is the ACPO lead on police performance management, was asked whether he would have to reduce front-line policing in order to meet the Government's budget cuts. He replied: "I absolutely am." He has also said:
	"Let me be really clear. With the scale of the cuts that we are experiencing...we can do an awful lot of work around the back office...but we cannot leave the front line untouched."
	That is because of the scale of the cuts and it is what chief constables are saying across the country.

Angela Smith: Meredydd Hughes, the chief constable of South Yorkshire, has said that Government expectations of improving performance were
	"challenging if not unrealistic in the longer term."
	Does that not demonstrate beyond doubt that the service will be damaged between now and 2015?

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right to mention the concerns of the chief constable of South Yorkshire. He is reported as having recently raised concerns about what would happen to crime in many areas as a result of the scale of the cuts in the Government's plans. The cuts go way beyond the 12% that Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary said could be made through genuine efficiency savings over several years, and they go way beyond the 12% cuts that the previous Labour Home Secretary identified and promised to implement over a Parliament-they are more than 15% in real terms in the first two years alone. The Government are cutting more in the first two years than Labour proposed to cut over a Parliament.

Oliver Heald: Does the right hon. Lady not feel any need to apologise for the state in which Labour left this country? We had the worst deficit in the G20-worse than Ireland and Greece. We are now trying to do something about it, but she criticises every saving. What is the matter with Labour? Do Labour Members not understand that everybody and every economic organisation across the world is saying that we need a deficit reduction package and that what she is saying is nonsense?

Yvette Cooper: Government Members have obviously been primed by the Whips today to join the debate but not make any points about policing. They are obviously afraid to discuss the consequences of the cuts for policing and crime in communities across the country, and they are starting to sound like a stuck record. They are cutting too far, too fast, and it is having serious consequences for our economy, the level of unemployment, and police forces. They are going too far, too fast, and communities will pay the price.
	The charge against the Home Secretary, as she sits in the dock aided and abetted by the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice, is serious. She is the first Conservative Home Secretary in history to champion cuts to the police as a way to cut crime. What is her defence? First, she tried to claim that she was not at the scene of the crime, and that it was the Chancellor who cut her budget and not her. She then tried to claim that no crime had been committed, saying
	"lower budgets do not automatically have to mean lower police numbers."
	Faced with the incriminating evidence of 12,500 fewer police, she changed her story:
	"We have been absolutely clear about the need for forces to ensure that the cuts are made to the back office, procurement, IT provision and so forth."-[ Official Report, 6 December 2010; Vol. 520, c. 19.]
	Her accomplice, meanwhile, said that savings could all come from the back office and the newly defined "middle office".
	The expert witnesses from HMIC have blown that defence away. Instead of proving that cuts could all be made from the back office, they showed that 95% of police officers do not work in the back office. Instead of identifying a wasteful middle office, they said that that office carried out 60% of intelligence support, included the CID specialist crime units, and worked on tackling hate crime, vice, drugs and burglary. Even the Conservative councillor who chairs of the Norfolk police authority has switched sides to give evidence for the prosecution. He stated:
	"I have to fundamentally disagree with the Minister's assertion that we can find further efficiencies in the so-called 'back office'...you can't take £24.5 million out of our annual spend and still deliver the policing service to the same current standards."

Chuka Umunna: In my local area, the police tell me that their back office is already cut to the bone. We are reaching a point- [ Interruption. ] That is what I have been told. Government Members may laugh, but that is what police officers have told me. We now have the ridiculous situation of front-line police officers taking time to do things such as empty the bins in a police station in my constituency. That was done by the back office, but it is no longer a back-office function as the back office is not there. The police are spending time emptying bins rather than being on the street fighting crime. How on earth is that justifiable?

Yvette Cooper: My right hon. Friend is right. We had identified a series of areas where savings could be made while still protecting front-line services. It is true, as the lonely Liberal Democrat on the Benches today will concede, that the Liberal Democrats had called for 3,000 more police officers, rather than voting to cut 12,500 police officers in constituencies across the country.
	The Home Secretary has tried a final line of defence. She hopes that the Merseyside force will come to her rescue as a character witness. She claims that if every force improved its visibility as well as Merseyside has done, more officers would be available. We agree that forces should increase their visibility, as many started to do when we introduced neighbourhood policing, and that they should learn from the best. But Merseyside's testimony does not help the Home Secretary's case, because it is losing more than 800 police officers, along with an estimated 1,000 staff. Its evidence shows that, despite its good work, it is already being forced to make cuts in front-line services, including to officers in visible jobs, who are already losing their jobs, and it is also cutting the antisocial behaviour task force.

Luciana Berger: My right hon. Friend will know that Merseyside police force made the biggest efficiency savings in the country before it received its grant settlement. That means that 800 police officers and 1,200 police support staff will now not be employed, and we are still waiting to find out how many policy community support officers we will lose their jobs. Is she as worried as I am that police officers in domestic violence units, undercover police units, child protection units and race hate crime units are no longer to be considered front-line police?

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend makes an important point. She will know from her constituency the impact that the cuts are having on communities across Merseyside. While Merseyside has certainly done excellent work in getting as many police on the beat as possible and in ensuring that its officers are as available as possible, as well as making very substantial efficiency savings, it is now being penalised. Its services are being hit, and it is the local communities in Merseyside that are paying the price. The truth is that the Home Secretary is making visibility more difficult to achieve in Merseyside, not easier.
	It is the same story in Warwickshire, where the force is having to take police officers off the front line to cover critical support jobs that have gone, and South Yorkshire's chief constable has said:
	"A reduction in back officer support will put an increased burden on operational officers, detracting them from frontline duties."
	HMIC said in July last year that
	"a cut beyond 12 per cent would almost certainly reduce police availability".

Yvette Cooper: We have always said that efficiency savings can be made. That is why we set out 12% reductions, but HMIC said that
	"a cut beyond 12 per cent would almost certainly reduce police availability".
	The hon. Gentleman also cited the HMIC figure on visibility, but he is misusing the figures. In fact, HMIC said in its most recent report that it is right that forces should try to increase visibility, but pointed out that policing is a 24/7 service. The report stated:
	"HMIC estimate that between five and six officers are needed in order to provide one on duty 24/7...This suggests that, overall, the police are operating at the upper end of the efficiency range."
	That is not my conclusion, but that of the independent HMIC.
	Chief constables are being put in an impossible position. They are doing their best within their budgets to deliver strong policing and to reassure the public, but the rug is being pulled out from underneath them. Whichever way we look at it, the evidence from the police and the expert witnesses is clear. The sheer scale and pace of the cuts mean that front-line services, and not just front-line numbers, are being hit. The Home Secretary and her co-defendants can change their story as much as they like, but every claim collapses under interrogation. The evidence from the police and the expert witnesses is damning, and the mood among the jury, as Lord Ashcroft's polling proves, is already hostile, even though the cuts have barely started to bite. It is little wonder that the Ministers are backing softer sentencing; they know that they are going to be found guilty as charged.
	Whatever Ministers say at the Dispatch Box, in their offices and in the TV studios, they are a long way from the reality in the police stations and out on the beat. They are out of touch. They think that if they talk fast enough and loudly enough in management-speak about efficiency, bureaucracy, visibility, availability, back office, middle office and even Middle Earth, it will somehow make the real cuts go away, but it will not. This is all a far cry from their pre-election promises. The Prime Minister promised that the front line would be protected. The Lib Dems wanted 3,000 more officers, not 12,000 fewer. Even the Policing Minister told his local paper, just a year before the election:
	"I will continue to press for more PCSOs and police officers".
	So much for that, then.
	As for Ministers' claims that there would be no link between the cuts in police numbers and crime, influential members of their own coalition see things rather differently. Before the election, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr Clegg) said that
	"putting 2,700 more police on the beat in England and Wales will lead to 27,500 more arrests and an extra 24,500 crimes being solved."
	I am not sure that I would sign up to his level of precision, but he made his point. And one prominent Tory Front Bencher said the following:
	"The case can certainly be made that the increase in police officers in the last few years has had a positive effect both on providing reassurance to the public and on reducing some crimes...I am making an argument in favour of an increase in police numbers".-[ Official Report, 3 May 2007; Vol. 459, c. 1671-73.]
	Who said that, in this House? The current Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice.
	Let us listen to the concerns from the top police. The South Yorkshire chief constable has warned of the impact of higher unemployment, shorter sentences, cuts in probation and cuts in police on increasing crime. The Kent chief constable has said that a 20% cut was
	"quite a significant drawback into police numbers, both civilian staff and police numbers, and clearly there's a potential impact that crime will rise."

Yvette Cooper: I welcome anything that the Kent chief constable is able to do to support neighbourhood policing, but the hon. Gentleman will know that Kent police are having to lose more than 500 officers and about 1,000 support staff. That means that they will be under pressure in a number of different areas.
	What on earth has happened to the Conservative party? The traditional party of policing and crime is throwing it all away. They have left the Liberal Democrats in charge of policing powers and sentencing policy, and they have left the management consultants in charge of the police. They are taking serious risks with crime and communities as a result. Over the 13 years of a Labour Government, crime fell by more than 40%, but most of us think that it is still too high. We want it to come down further. But instead of building on our progress, the Government are putting it at risk.
	The Government's amendment today
	"welcomes the Government's comprehensive proposals to cut crime",
	but what are those proposals? In 13 years of falling crime, Labour increased the number of police officers and got more of them on to the front line, increased the powers of the police through ASBOs and other measures, increased the use of CCTV and DNA, increased crime prevention through youth services and intensive family support, strengthened sentencing and, yes, sent more people to prison. What are this Government doing? They are making cuts in the number of police officers and cuts in the number on the front line. They are cutting the powers of the police and ending ASBOs. They are cutting the use of CCTV and DNA. They are cutting prevention, youth services and specialist family support. They are cutting sentencing, cutting prison places and cutting probation, all at the same time. They are increasing unemployment and child poverty, too. Those do not sound like crime-cutting proposals to me.
	The Government are whipping up a perfect storm. None of us knows when it will blow, but they should think again before it is too late. Let me say this to them: they used to be the party of law and order once. Not now.

Theresa May: I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and add:
	"welcomes the Government's comprehensive proposals to cut crime and increase the democratic accountability of policing while dealing with the largest peacetime deficit in history; supports the Government's determination to help the police make savings to protect frontline services; congratulates the police forces that are increasing the number of officers visible and available to the public; notes that the Opposition's spending plans require reductions in police spending; and regrets its refusal to support sensible savings or to set out an alternative."
	I want to start by saying that in this country we have the finest police in the world. The tragic events in Omagh at the weekend have yet again shown the bravery of police officers serving in all parts of the United Kingdom. They put their lives on the line day in, day out, and I am sure that the whole House will join with me in paying tribute to the courage, dedication and commitment of all our police officers.
	I am delighted that we are having this debate today. Of course, the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) wanted to hold it last time there was an Opposition day, but she was overruled by the shadow Chancellor-not for the first time, I understand. From looking at the text of the Opposition motion and listening to the right hon. Lady's speech, one might think that they had not planned to make any cuts to policing budgets, but in fact Labour's overall spending plans involved £14 billion of cuts to Government spending this year, including cuts to the policing budget. The Opposition just will not tell Parliament, the police or the public how they would make them.

Theresa May: I gently suggest that if the right hon. Gentleman is going to make an intervention it might help if he gets his facts right. He has the wrong figures. Indeed, I notice a difference between him and the shadow Home Secretary, who said she would make 12% cuts. The right hon. Gentleman talks about cuts of £1.5 billion-more like 15% or 16%. What we have done and what the Opposition have singularly failed to do is set out a detailed and comprehensive plan to free the police, give accountability back to the people, bring in real reforms and make real savings.
	We struck a tough but fair settlement for the police in the spending review. Let us look at the figures. In real terms, the average reduction in central Government funding for the police will be about 5.5% a year, but given that police pay constitutes 80% of all police revenue spending and the likelihood that police pay will be frozen for two years along with that of the rest of the public sector, the reductions in police force budgets will be less severe than the real terms figures imply.
	In cash terms, the average reduction for forces' grants will be 4% in the first year, 5% in the second, 2% in the third and 1% in the fourth. Again, that does not include the local council tax contribution, which on average makes up a quarter of all police funding. In fact, if we assume that the council tax precept rises in line with the Office for Budget Responsibility's expectations, in cash terms the police face an average cut of 6% over four years. Those figures show that the reductions are challenging but achievable.

Theresa May: No. I was merely pointing out the fact that the Opposition appear to keep forgetting, which is that police forces have two sources of funding: from central Government and from the precept.
	I am absolutely clear that such savings will be achieved only if we reform and modernise our police service, which Labour consistently dodged and ducked during its time in office. We should be absolutely clear that, as the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford has admitted today, Labour would not have protected police budgets but would have had to make the same savings as we are.
	During the last general election campaign, the Labour Home Secretary was asked whether he could guarantee that police numbers would not fall under a Labour Government and his answer was no. Now, the right hon. Lady claims she would be able to protect police numbers. Despite Labour's denials, we know the truth-they would have made cuts to the police budget, just as we are.

Tobias Ellwood: A theme is developing. A call is made for an Opposition day debate on one of the great offices of state and Labour Members come to the House, demanding that difficult decisions are overturned while completely forgetting why we must make those difficult decisions in the first place- [ Interruption. ] Aside from the cuts, one big issue that affected the police in Dorset was the amount of red tape, which meant that officers were spending only 14% of their time on the beat. Is that right? Can we not change it?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend makes two extremely important points. First, judging by the replies from the shadow Home Secretary to a number of interventions from my hon. Friends-as well as the noise just made by Labour Members from a sedentary position-all those on the Labour Benches fail to recognise the state in which they left this country's economy, with the biggest deficit in our peacetime history. By the necessary measures we have taken to cut public spending, we have taken this country's economy out of the danger zone. My hon. Friend also makes an important point about bureaucracy. Central to our reforms is the need to get central Government out of the way and to start trusting the police again.

Theresa May: The right hon. Lady is absolutely clear that if Labour had been in government, it would have made cuts. We are making cuts. My point was very simple: she is claiming today that it would have been possible for a Labour Government to have protected police numbers. It would not have been possible, as the last Labour Home Secretary admitted during the election campaign. The right hon. Lady must consider that very carefully.
	The one thing that the previous Labour Government failed to do was to address the bureaucracy that ties up our police officers in filling in forms rather than doing the job that they want to do and that the public want them to do out on the streets. Indeed, the former president of the Police Federation and the previous Government's own police bureaucracy fighter, Jan Berry, said that as a result of their
	"diktats the service has been reduced to a bureaucratic, target-chasing, points-obsessed arm of Whitehall".
	We have done away with the diktats, we have scrapped the central targets, and we are ripping up the red tape. Instead, we are putting our trust back in the police and we are making them accountable to the people who really matter-the public.

Angela Smith: On Friday, my constituent-a very senior officer in West Yorkshire police-came to see me at my surgery and asked me to put on the record in this debate his deeply rooted view that the Government's police spending cuts will damage the service. What does the Home Secretary have to say to my constituent?

Theresa May: I would suggest that the hon. Lady says two things to her constituent. First, she should make clear why the Government are having to make cuts in public spending-they are a result of the decisions taken by the previous Labour Government. Secondly, she should also make clear the commitment that Chief Constable Sir Norman Bettison has given to what he calls the central drivers of the way in which West Yorkshire police will deal with the budget changes. He states that the first is that
	"local policing will not suffer, the sort of policing you see when you open your curtains and the emergency response of the police at the times when people are feeling vulnerable, under threat or have suffered some criminal act or tragedy."
	On bureaucracy, we have scrapped the so-called policing pledge and done away with the last remaining national targets and we have replaced them with a single objective: to cut crime. We are scrapping the stop-and-account form, cutting the reporting requirements for stop and search, and restoring discretion over certain charging decisions to the police, and that is just the start.

Theresa May: No. I shall make some more progress.
	I have made the point about the bureaucracy, but what we have done is just the start. Working with the police, we are looking at sweeping away a wide range of the red tape, bureaucracy and paperwork that get in the way of officers doing what they want to do-getting out on the streets and keeping us safe.

Theresa May: The right hon. Lady just does not get the fact that this Government are getting rid of much of the bureaucracy that has been tying up the police in red tape and taking them off the job that they want to do-something that the previous Government singularly failed to do. I would have thought that Labour supported us in our efforts to get officers out from behind their desks and back on the streets, but when one of their several former shadow Home Secretaries was asked by the Home Affairs Committee:
	"Do you think it would be better if police spent more time on patrol than they do on paperwork?",
	he replied:
	"I think that is too simplistic a question for me to give a sensible answer."
	Perhaps the right hon. Lady would like to tell us whether she agrees with the shadow Chancellor that the police should be behind their desks, filling in forms, or does she agree with me that they should be out on the street, fighting crime?

Michael Ellis: Will my right hon. Friend note that Jan Berry, the former president of the Police Federation, wrote only recently that one third of all effort was being duplicated or in some way wasted, and therefore that considerable savings could be made by a reduction in bureaucracy? One third-engineered or duplicated.

Jack Dromey: rose -

Stephen McCabe: rose -

Theresa May: I will make some progress before I give way to any other interventions.
	Our reforms are also based on the premise that the police must be accountable not to civil servants in Whitehall, but to the communities that they serve. Last Thursday, the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill completed its passage through the House. It is our hope that it will complete its passage through the Lords and receive Royal Assent in time for elections for police and crime commissioners to take place next year.
	During the Committee stage of the Bill, the Opposition helpfully conceded the principle that we need democratic reform in policing, but their idea is just to add elections on top of the existing ineffective structures by having elected police authority chairs, which would add to the costs without bringing any of the benefits. Under our proposals, police and crime commissioners will have the power to set the police budget, determine local policing priorities and hold their chief constables to account. If they do not cut crime and help keep their communities safe, they will face the ultimate sanction of rejection at the ballot box.
	However, slashing Labour's bureaucracy and increasing accountability is not enough. The police will have to take their fair share of the cuts across Government to clear up Labour's financial mess, so direct savings and efficiencies are also needed.

Theresa May: I am very happy to visit police forces, as I do, to talk to police officers across the board, and to hear directly what they are saying. When I next make a trip to the West Midlands force, I am very happy for the hon. Gentleman to arrange for me to meet those five officers. I am sure I will be meeting other officers as well.
	It is important that we ensure that we make changes within our police force so that we have the police force that we need to face the 21st century, but it is also important that we make sure that taxpayers' money is spent effectively. Our starting point for savings is the report by HMIC, "Valuing the Police" which estimated that £1.15 billion per year could be saved if only the least efficient forces brought themselves up to the average level of efficiency.
	However, the fiscal deficit left by Labour is so dire that bringing all forces up to the average level is no longer enough-forces must go further. We must raise the performance of all our police forces up to the level, not of the average, but of the most efficient forces. If forces improve productivity and adjust to the level of spend typical in the most efficient forces, we could add another £350 million to the £1.15 billion of savings that HMIC calculated.
	This sort of thing is already happening. In Suffolk and Norfolk the police forces are creating a shared service platform for their back-office support functions, saving around £10 million per year. In Kent, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) who serves on the Kent police authority made clear, the police are streamlining and rationalising support services, enabling them to put more into the front line. The Kent force is also collaborating with Essex police to make savings and allow more resources to be devoted to the front line.
	In London the Metropolitan police are getting more officers to patrol alone, rather than in pairs, and are better matching resources to demand in neighbourhood policing, increasing officer availability to the public by 25%. In Gloucestershire the police are putting 15% more sergeants and constables into visible policing roles and increasing the numbers of officers on the beat, at the same time as they are making savings. These examples show that it can be done and it must be done.
	There were other aspects that were outside the remit of the HMIC report. I know that members of the Opposition Front-Bench team have not read everything that was in that report, so let me spell it out to them. HMIC did not look at the savings that could be made by joining up police procurement and IT, for example. Currently, the police have 2,000 different IT systems across the 43 forces, employing 5,000 staff. As my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Claire Perry) said, the police currently procure items from uniforms to helicopters in 43 different ways. That makes no sense.
	Working with the police, we have already secured their agreement that the right way forward is a national, joined-up approach, with better contracts, more joint purchasing, a smaller number of different IT systems and greater private sector involvement. With these changes we can save a further £350 million. Again, that is over and above the savings that HMIC identified.

Stephen McCabe: rose-

Theresa May: The other major item that HMIC did not look at was pay. In an organisation like the police, where £11 billion goes on pay, there is no question that pay restraint and pay reform must form part of the package. That is why we believe, subject to any recommendations from the Police Negotiating Board, that there should be a two-year pay freeze in policing, just as there has been across the whole of the public sector. This would add at least another £350 million of savings to those calculated by HMIC.
	All these savings, together with those identified by HMIC, give us £2.2 billion of savings, just over the £2.1 billion reduction in central Government grant that must be made. And even that ignores the contribution from the local precept.

Theresa May: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. Our view is that it is important to get the balance right between what the centre does and what the local forces do. Of course we want to leave decision making with the local forces, but we are working with them and ensuring that they will collaborate on those aspects where it makes sense for them to do so in order to make the savings that enable them to reduce their budgets without affecting the front-line services that people want out there in the streets.
	No Home Secretary wants to freeze or cut police officers' pay packages, but with Labour's record budget deficit these are extraordinary circumstances. That is why I commissioned Tom Winsor to undertake the most comprehensive review of police pay and conditions in more than 30 years, not because I want to make savings for their own sake, but because I want to protect police jobs and keep officers on the streets. We are doing everything we can to minimise the effect of the necessary spending reductions on pay. I have spelt out savings today, but we cannot avoid the fact that changes to pay and conditions have to be part of the package.

Stephen McCabe: The Home Secretary is very generous. Following her comment on pay and trying to protect the police from the worst effects of the cuts, does she accept Winsor's own comment that 40% of officers stand to lose as much as £4,000 a year as a result of the proposals she is putting forward?

Theresa May: Tom Winsor did not say that. He indicated that a percentage of officers could lose funding as a result of his proposals, which are about putting increased pay to those officers who are in front-line service or who are using certain specialist skills in their work. I want action on pay to be as fair as possible. We are determined not only to cut out waste and inefficiency, but to ensure that pay recognises and rewards front-line service and allows chief officers to put in place modern management practices.
	The Opposition know that savings can and should be made by modernising police pay and conditions. Indeed, they have said so publicly. The right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford and the former Policing Minister, the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), have both said that Labour planned savings in the police overtime budget, but when Tom Winsor proposed those savings they attacked them. I am sure that not only police officers and staff, but the public, would prefer us to look at pay and conditions rather than lose thousands of posts. Given that the Opposition do not support reform of pay and conditions, losing more posts is exactly what they would do.

Paul Blomfield: On the key issue of posts, the chief constable of South Yorkshire police, who has been mentioned a number of times in the debate, is facing a loss of 1,200 police and civilian posts. He is absolutely clear that there will be an enormous impact on front-line policing and has said that crime will rise in South Yorkshire. Given the Home Secretary's concern that we should trust the police and their judgment, what would she say to him?

Theresa May: What I say to the hon. Gentleman is this: he is standing up saying that he wants to be able to save police jobs, so why have the Opposition singularly failed to support Tom Winsor's proposals? Not only did they not support the proposals, but the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford said that in commissioning Tom Winsor's report I was picking a fight with the police. It is absolutely clear that there are chief constables out there who recognise the impact that this could have. The chief constable of Thames Valley has said, "Tom Winsor's report on terms and conditions provide us with recommendations that could cut the size of our pay bill if they are implemented. This will allow us to reassess the job reductions we had planned for future years and maybe to retain greater number of officers and staff."
	I have set out today that we have already identified savings over and above the reduction in central Government grant, so it is clear that savings can be made while front-line services are maintained and improved. The truth behind today's debate is that the Labour party is engaged in opposition for opposition's sake. They admit that there is a democratic deficit in policing but oppose our reforms to bring in democratic accountability. They said they would not be able to guarantee police numbers, but now they say that they would protect them. They say they would cut police spending, but now they oppose every single saving we have identified. They oppose a two-year pay freeze, meaning that their cuts would have to be deeper. They say that they would cut police overtime, but then they attack Tom Winsor when he proposes just that. They oppose reform of pay and conditions, meaning that under Labour more police jobs would have to go. This is not constructive opposition, but shameless opportunism, and the public know it.
	Only one side of the House has a clear plan to reform the police and cut crime. We are slashing bureaucracy, restoring discretion, increasing efficiency, giving power back to the people and, most of all, freeing the police to fight crime. Every one of those measures is opposed by the Labour party, which is why their motion deserves to fail.

Alun Michael: I will start by repeating the declaration I make when policing issues come up in the Home Affairs Committee, which is that my oldest son is chief executive of the North Wales police authority.
	I am amazed by the sheer complacency of the Home Secretary's speech. She seems to have just landed from another planet. Given that we are experiencing the largest annual fall in police officer strength since figures were first published for March 1978-I depend on the House of Commons Library for that figure-it is obvious that the cuts are going too far, too deep and are happening too fast. I do not rely only on statistics to know that; I need only speak with senior police officers, experienced people who do not want to leave the police, who work on the streets in my constituency-colleagues can do the same in their constituencies-to know that we are losing people whose experience, knowledge and dedication is invaluable in the fight against crime.
	The Home Secretary caricatured the position of the Opposition and previous Ministers, such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson). The cuts that the Government propose are roughly double the level that my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) described as painful but possible when he was Home Secretary. The fact that the cuts are front-loaded makes the pain even worse.
	I do not blame the Policing Minister, because this is driven by a Chancellor and a Prime Minister who are on the rampage with economic cuts that they clearly believe in and that go beyond what is economically necessary. The Home Secretary should have done better in negotiations and given the Policing Minister the tools that are necessary to do his job well. It is a fascinating and challenging role, as some of us know from our time in that job. The police need the tools to do the job. I want to inject some realism into the debate about what we expect from the police and then focus on what we mean by front-line policing.
	In recent months, the Home Secretary has muddled the issues by talking so much about visible policing, as if the test is whether each of us can see a couple of Dixon-style cops strolling up our streets with measured tread. Visibility can mean different things to different people, so let us look at look at some examples. I will start with my own city of Cardiff. Pretty much all the police officers were pulled off the streets across south Wales on 5 June last year because the English Defence League made an unwelcome and unpleasant foray into south Wales. Inevitably, and rightly, I was there. People from a wide range of political and community groups marched as Unite Against Fascism. It was a massive and peaceful presence on our streets rejecting the bile and hatred of the EDL. That was a sort of inverse bonus for the city, because the police already had to cope with the Wales  v. South Africa rugby game at the Millennium stadium. It was rather an irony that I had to depend for updates via text messages from my daughter, who was watching the match on television in Cape Town, because I was on the streets instead of at the game. On the same afternoon, the West Indies cricket team was playing against the England and Wales cricket team at Sophia gardens-it is called the England and Wales team when it is not doing very well, but the England team when it is doing well. The Stereophonics were in concert at Cardiff city stadium at the same time.
	The police and the organisers of Unite Against Fascism and of the sporting events worked very hard to make it a peaceful day, and apart from a few idiots it went well. That was greatly to the credit of South Wales police, who took all necessary precautions. However, they could not be very visible in other parts of south Wales on such a day. It is challenging to police a successful capital city.
	Despite such challenges, we have seen a major reduction in crime in Cardiff and across the South Wales police force area. Crime figures show that for 2009-10, crime overall fell by 11.7%, compared to 2008-09. More than 13,000 fewer people became victims of crimes such as burglary and vehicle crime. Robbery was down a massive 27%, with South Wales police the second most improved force in England and Wales.
	That is not just down to the police; crime and disorder partnerships have helped, particularly through the violence reduction project in Cardiff, led by a medic, Professor Jonathan Shepherd. Violence resulting in a victim needing treatment at an accident and emergency unit is down by more than 40% in Cardiff, so the reduction is not just down to the police, but that partnership approach cannot work without the police. Is that front-line work? Is it visible policing? The answer to both questions must be no, unless we distort the words far beyond their normal, common-sense meaning.
	Let me give some other examples. First, it is vital that police officers do undercover work and work internationally to counter terrorism. Preventing an explosion does not get the headlines commanded by the sort of bombs that went off in London in July 2005, but that is exactly why it is important for such quiet but effective work to go on year-in, year-out.
	Secondly, there is the need to combat organised crime: those who traffic drugs, people and human misery. Again, that is well organised criminal activity and international in scale, as some of us saw when we visited Turkey with the Home Affairs Committee a few weeks ago.
	Thirdly, there is internet-related crime, which includes fraud on a massive scale and serious and well-organised child abuse.

Alun Michael: Absolutely. Often, it is not very pleasant work. It is painstaking, time-consuming, requires a great deal of commitment, and often people put themselves in danger by undertaking such not very visible activity.
	In each of the three areas that I have just mentioned, success commands little publicity. A day's report of convictions is the best that they can expect, and that is trumped by the drip-feed of facts and fears as the media quite rightly report the crimes and warn us of the dangers. That is inevitable, because until a case is brought to court, publicity might undermine it, and that is a risk which cannot be taken. It means, however, that the public demand for reassurance and safety involves effectiveness, not just visibility. Success on its own does not give reassurance.
	There is an issue of confidence, but crime is down. I have referred to the massive drop in violent crime in Cardiff, as measured by the number of people who need emergency treatment, but people do not feel safe. They worry about neighbourhood nuisance, graffiti and rudeness as much as about murder and terrorism, and that is why police accountability is challenging and why Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary was right to send a message to the Home Secretary last week, defining the front line as a complex and challenging place.
	That report itself, however, raises some serious issues, because the four categories of police work as set out in the report-visible, specialist, middle office and back office-do not include the strategic partnership work to which I referred earlier, and it is not clear that the report includes the other examples that I have given either.
	I was a member of the Justice Committee when it produced its report on justice reinvestment. That report points out that many of the services that can make an impact on cutting crime depend on resources outside the criminal justice system: mental health, drug and alcohol rehabilitation, skills, employment, housing and personal relationships. Harnessing those resources, however, requires greater engagement by the police, not less, so forcing the police to withdraw from such teamwork will lead to long-term costs, rather than to savings.
	That is why I am sceptical of the HMIC report. It fails to refer to the words of Sir Robert Peel, stating that the purpose of policing is to prevent and reduce crime, words that were quoted by the Policing Minister when he gave evidence to the Home Affairs Committee and in a number of other contexts. I applaud him for quoting that as the prime purpose of the police, but nowhere in the HMIC report does it refer to the work of crime reduction partnerships or to any findings from the Justice Committee's report.
	A time of financial constraint is the right time to be innovative and strategic and to go back to basic questions such as, "What is this all for?" The HMIC report does not do that. At the end of the day, cutting bureaucracy is indeed a worthy objective, but the Home Secretary will find that it is not as easy as she thinks; many previous Ministers have been dedicated to cutting bureaucracy. Increasing the visibility of the police, solving more crime, arresting more offenders and succeeding in a higher proportion of prosecutions are also worthy objectives, but they are means to an end, not an end in themselves, and that is why we need to spell out the danger of the cuts that go too deep, too fast and too far.
	Several people have quoted the chief constable of the South Yorkshire force. I could quote any number of chief constables, but I will quote Meredydd Hughes, because I remember him as an effective front-line police officer in Llanrumney in my constituency earlier in his career. He said that the cuts questioned the sustainability of unprecedented reductions in crime over the last 15 years, and let us not forget how successful the previous Government were in driving down crime. He also said:
	"A reduction in back office support will put an increased burden on operational officers detracting them from front-line duties."
	But, above all, he said:
	"What is clear is that we will be unable to continue to provide the level of service that we do today in such areas as neighbourhood policing within diversionary and problem solving activities."
	I worry that the HMIC report does not say enough about diversion, prevention, crime reduction or problem-solving activities. They seem to have fallen outside the four categories that it chose, and we need to look at that report and its definition with very great care.

Paul Farrelly: In Staffordshire, the protestations that the cuts should not hit front-line services simply sound absurd. From this November, the county, which has a Conservative-run council, is implementing a rule that will force serving police officers, irrespective of rank or experience, to retire once they have reached 30 years' service. Does my right hon. Friend think that Staffordshire police will enforce regulation A19 lightly, or does he think that it has something to do with the severity and depth of the cuts?

Simon Hart: I am grateful to have been called in this debate, so soon after last week's proceedings on the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill, to express some of the frustration that has reached me from police officers in the far west Dyfed Powys force and, indeed, from members of the public, who are increasingly concerned about seemingly being used as a political pawn in the debate. It is affecting that vital bond between the public and the police, and indeed the morale of police officers themselves.
	In our debate last week, I drew a parallel with the ongoing consultation on the future of the coastguard service, simply to remind myself as well as the House that the great passion for that service-one that is crucial in west Wales at Milford Haven-is built on loyalty, public respect, a sense of ownership and the sense that the coastguard and, indeed, the police are somehow part of the fabric and the architecture of the community, and that people know that when they ring the coastguard, as with the police, they will get a trusted and, above all, local response. That is increasingly relevant in this debate.
	As hon. Members know, the Dyfed Powys force covers a huge geographical area of rural west Wales, but it has its fair share of terrorist-related incidents, urban crime and industrial-related challenges. Above all, however, what the force possesses is an ancient relationship with the community, and the potential compromise of that relationship, as a result of the terms of the Opposition's motion, is causing our officers and our public to waver between nervousness and distrust and, at times, contempt. Public confidence is very precious, and the idea that we can compromise it on the back of financial mismanagement over the past few years is the scandal at the heart of this debate, rather than the proposals put forward by the Government.
	Several Members have referred to conversations that they have had with their local chief constables, and I will be no exception. Mr Ian Arundale, who is highly respected by the public in our area and by his own members of staff, has told me on more than one occasion that the proposals are challenging but need not compromise public safety.

Stephen McCabe: Does the hon. Gentleman think that the chief constable of Lancashire, who is the ACPO lead on performance management, was being irresponsible or misleading when he said on the "Today" programme on 29 March,
	"we cannot leave the front line untouched and that is because of the scale of the cuts"?

Simon Hart: The hon. Gentleman may be also be interested in the comments of the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw), who said:
	"I don't think it's possible to make a direct correlation between police numbers and crime reduction."
	It is being assumed that a reduced number of police officers means a reduced service. I would argue, as have chief constables across the land, including my own, that that is not as clear cut as the hon. Gentleman might suggest. In Dyfed Powys, there will be a different sort of policing as a consequence of these changes-it will look different, as I said last week. There will be a greater reliance on technology, and things will not be quite as they were before. However, it is irresponsible to suggest that the public are somehow endangered as a result, and that makes the motion something that the Opposition should be rather ashamed of.

Simon Hart: I fully follow the hon. Gentleman's logic. The comment I made is attributed to a Member from his own party, and a similar comment was made by the former Home Secretary, so perhaps he will take it up with them when he has the opportunity.
	I commend the approach of the Dyfed Powys force in its tackling of the challenges ahead. It had a simple strategy, which was to list its challenges as the things that it must do, the things that it could do, and the things that it must stop doing. Hon. Members may be interested to discover, as I was, that the last of those three lists is longer than Labour Members may care to consider. One such example was the victims of crime leaflet, a new Labour gimmick if ever there was one, which was abandoned by the Dyfed Powys police force as being a waste of officers' time and the public's time, and-guess what?-public satisfaction with the force went up at the same time as that measure was disposed of. That illustrates what I think, what my voters think, and what the police officers of Dyfed Powys think-that we would much rather have our police officers engaged in proper crime prevention and detection than in subsequently taking part in some sort of PR exercise to suit a political agenda.

Simon Hart: The hon. Gentleman asks me to comment on a constabulary that is about as far away from my own as it is possible to go. All I can say on behalf of my own area is that we simply want our police officers to be solving crime and, better still, preventing crime-dealing with the realities of day-to-day life rather than engaging in spurious PR exercises and form filling of the sort that has dominated the political agenda for some time and that this Government are rightly seeking to reduce.
	There is talk of its being easier simply not to replace chief superintendents-I almost said chief constables, which was a bit of a Freudian slip-after their 30-year service has come to an end. Of course there is a temptation to take that approach but, certainly in our case, it is balanced with the clear need seriously to address the issue of back-office support that other hon. Members have mentioned. That has been slightly misrepresented, because huge importance is attached to back-office police work as distinct from back-office administrative activity. The right hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Alun Michael) was a little disingenuous in not making that clear separation.

Paul Farrelly: I mentioned the 149 police officers being forced to resign after 30 years' service in Staffordshire, but I did not mention the six police stations, including my own in Newcastle-under-Lyme, that are being closed because of the cuts. These are police stations that survived Margaret Thatcher and are now falling victim to Cameron-Clegg. Would the hon. Gentleman designate those as much-needed assets or merely back-office functions that can be reorganised willy-nilly?

Simon Hart: The hon. Gentleman conveniently takes me on to my next point.
	I do not think anybody on the Government Benches-obviously I cannot speak for the Home Secretary-has gone into these challenges with any great sense of glee based on any great ideology. It is grim reality time-responsibility time. I was fortunate enough to operate in the private sector before I came to this place. I was responsible for 90 employees and a budget of £5 million. Every single year I was forced to reduce that budget, every single year I went to my departmental head, every single year they said they could not do it, and every single year they said it would never be the same again and the end of civilisation as we know it, and-guess what?-after 10 years we had a lean, efficient machine that served its members responsibly and cost-effectively. What it boils down to-my own chief constable has said this publicly and privately-is that police officers are well capable of applying the same corporate disciplines in the police world that most people out there in the real world apply to their businesses. We should not automatically assume that a new approach to efficient policing will necessarily lead to compromises in safety.
	The Government's proposals take us back to relatively recent levels of funding, not to the dark ages. They remove a thick layer of bureaucracy that I thought everybody in this House was keen to see rid of, as well as members of the public and the police force. These proposals take police officers out of their offices and put them back where we need them: solving and preventing crime, and closer to their communities.
	The scandal of this motion, and the reason I took part in this debate-I had no serious intention of doing so, but I was driven to it by frustration-is that it has nothing whatsoever to do with protecting vulnerable people in society or defending jobs in the police, and everything to do with furthering Labour's political aims. To do that in the run-up to a Welsh Assembly election when so many things are at stake, and to do so at the expense of the fear of vulnerable people in society and police officers worried about their jobs, is an absolute scandal. For that reason alone, the motion should fail dismally.

Julie Elliott: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to take part in this important debate.
	In January, I met the acting chief constable of Northumbria police to discuss the significant challenges she now has to face. Owing to central Government cuts, Northumbria police have to identify more than £57 million of cuts to be made over the next three years. That will lead to fewer police on our streets. I recognise that some savings are inevitable, but the depth and extent of the cuts that this Government are imposing on our police force will have a long and lasting effect on our communities and my constituents. My local police authority has confirmed that 318 police officers will lose their jobs, and that 825 support staff jobs will be lost. That is 41% of all support staff. In total, the sad figure of 1,143 jobs will be lost across the region.
	Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary warned that forces could make savings of up to 12% before front-line policing would be affected. This Government have arrogantly gone ahead with cutting central funding to the police by 20%, while continuing to claim that front-line services will be protected. Despite the cuts, Northumbria police are expected to maintain or even improve the services they provide. The numbers simply do not add up. I believe that this situation is impossible. I fail to see how Northumbria police's track record of excellence and the quality of service that they provide to my constituents will not be challenged and compromised by the loss of staff.
	Before entering this House, I was a trade union official for the GMB, as is stated in the Register of Members' Financial Interests. For a number of years, I had the privilege of representing GMB members employed by Northumbria police as support staff, so I understand the jobs that support staff do. I know how hard they work and how dedicated they are to providing an excellent service to the residents of the Northumbria police area.

Louise Mensch: Will the hon. Lady speculate on what would be the effect on Northumbria police of the policing cuts that the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) has just announced that Labour would have made of 15% over the course of this Parliament?

Julie Elliott: That is substantially less than the Government propose. The key point is that it would be done over the course of a Parliament. These cuts are being implemented now-too fast and too deep.
	The jobs that support staff do are crucial and important; they are not anonymous pen pushers. They do jobs such as taking calls from the public and directing them to the correct area within the force or escalating them to the correct level-for instance, if an accident has happened. Some are employed at the driver training school, which teaches all police officers specialist driving skills, such as how to drive safely at speed, before allowing them to drive a police car. Those are not jobs that do not have to be done, but essential jobs. If support staff do not do them, someone else will have to. They are not the type of jobs that can be got rid of.

Julie Elliott: If back-room staff are freeing police officers to be out on the streets dealing with crime, they are doing an important job in bringing down crime. That is what my constituents say to me.
	Staffing rationalisations, which I have heard much about from Government Members, have been ongoing for many years in police services. In my opinion, support staffing is down to a level where there is little, if any, slack. The cuts will take police officers off the streets to do support staff jobs. The result will be many fewer police doing front-line duties.
	When Labour left office, there was a record number of police on the streets-nearly 17,000 more than in 1997-and 16,000 new police community support officers. Inevitably, the record number of police officers on our streets meant that crime fell dramatically. That is a record of which all Labour Members can be proud. The Government are unravelling all the work that was done to increase police numbers and as a result are putting the safety of our communities at risk.
	The question I ask today is this: I know that my constituents value their police force, so why do this Government not? When the police do so much to protect our homes, families and communities it is only right that we show them just how valuable they are. At the moment, the Government are sending the police the opposite message from that of my constituents.
	Over the last few weeks, many police officers who live and work in my constituency have contacted me. They are concerned about the additional and unnecessary pressure they will face as a result of the Government's cuts. One serving police officer contacted me recently to say:
	"The cuts to police officers and police staff will have a massive effect on our ability to police the streets throughout our force area. Our command team have no alternative but to face the press and pretend to them that we can make ourselves more efficient and improve the service we deliver. To say anything else would cause panic across our force area. This is the direct result of the massive cuts to police budgets imposed by the current government".
	I think that that sums it up. I ask the Government to consider the impossible position in which they are putting our police officers and chief constables.
	For years, Sunderland has led the field in tackling domestic violence. The Safer Sunderland Partnership and its dedicated team have worked tirelessly and effectively to support women and children who are victims of and at risk from domestic violence. The Government cuts will put such specialist policing units under strain or facing closure. Sunderland's safer communities team is losing its highly dedicated domestic violence co-ordinator. Our communities, and the women and children whom these services protect, cannot afford to take that risk. The Government do not seem to consider specialist services such as domestic violence, child abuse and serious organised crime units, or those involved in training, to be front-line services and they will not be exempt from the cuts. The Government may not consider such units to be important, but my constituents do and they greatly appreciate the work that they do to protect our community.
	It is time that the Government faced up to reality and recognised the risks that they are taking with crime in our communities-risks that we cannot afford. They must review the level of cuts that they are imposing before it is too late.

Tom Brake: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. That is the second point on which we can agree: the police should, indeed, cut crime.
	The police could also make savings from consolidating IT services, as the Home Secretary said. The police have no fewer than 2,000 separate IT systems. Surely that is a good place to look for savings. We can do much more with technology to help the police use their time more effectively, and all parties agree that we need to do much more to ensure smarter procurement.
	Another point on which the coalition partners agree, but on which Labour opposes us, is the terms and conditions of police officers. The Government were right to set up the Winsor review of police pay and conditions, and of course the coalition Government will work in co-operation with the police negotiating bodies on the matter. To fight crime, we need a modern and flexible work force to help chief constables manage their resources properly, maximise officer time and improve the service to the public. We are clear, of course, that the police must be fairly compensated for their work, which is difficult and often dangerous, as we have been tragically reminded over the weekend following the callous murder of Ronan Kerr.
	What are the key facts behind what the coalition Government are doing? It is true that Government funding for the police is being reduced, and will be reduced throughout this Parliament. However, as the Home Secretary said, the police also receive precept funding, and the Government's freeze in police pay will make a substantial contribution to maintaining budgets.
	I acknowledge that the picture across the country is complex, and it is clear from the reports that we are getting from different forces that some are finding the situation tougher to address than others. However, as Members have said, some police forces are actually increasing the number of front-line officers, such as Gloucestershire police, which is moving up to 15% of police officers into more visible roles. Many Members have quoted the HMIC report, which revealed that some forces have twice the visibility and availability of policing of others. It is clear that all forces can make improvements to the visibility of police officers.
	The same report showed that a third of resources are not on the front line, and highlighted the great differences in the visibility of police officers at different times. Some 16% are visible on a Friday morning at 9 o'clock, but only 9% are visible and available on a Friday night. Again, it is clear that there are things that forces can do to increase the visibility of police without necessarily touching police numbers. They can provide police at the time when the public want to see them. I am sure all Members have been accosted by constituents who ask them why police officers and safer neighbourhood teams are out patrolling at 9 o'clock on a Monday morning rather than in the town centre at 9 o'clock on a Friday night. Improvements can therefore be made to rotas.
	The Labour party's record is worthy of some scrutiny. As Opposition Members may well know, in 2009, just 14% of all officers' time was spent on patrol, compared with 22% on paperwork. In one year alone, from 2007 to 2008, the amount of time spent on paperwork increased by 22%. The Home Secretary referred to the comment of Peter Fahy, the chief constable of Greater Manchester police, that Labour had a political obsession with numbers of police.

Stephen Twigg: rose-

Stephen Twigg: I am grateful. In the light of the hon. Gentleman's comments, does he regret the commitment that he stood on last May of 3,000 additional police officers?

Tom Brake: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point, and I apologise for pre-empting it. However, I said at the beginning of my speech that the circumstances that we are in have required all parties to reappraise any prior commitments in their manifestos. Quite simply, as the former Chief Secretary to the Treasury said, there is no money.
	I turn back to the previous Government's record. Jan Berry, as the hon. Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis) mentioned, said about police bureaucracy:
	"I would estimate one-third of effort is either over-engineered, duplicated or adds no additional value."
	She was the person whom the previous Government chose to examine bureaucracy, and that was her assessment of police effort.

Tom Brake: I thank the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee. I am absolutely certain that the work that Jan Berry has already done will inform what the chief constable and the Government are doing to address bureaucracy.
	A previous Labour Home Secretary, when he was asked in April 2010 whether he could guarantee that police numbers would not fall, said that he could not. The shadow Chancellor is on record as saying that under his plans,
	"you will lose some non-uniformed back office staff".
	It is interesting that the shadow Home Secretary and the shadow Chancellor cannot even agree among themselves what their position on the Winsor review is. The former has attacked the Government for initiating the review, but the latter has said that overtime and shift work savings are something that
	"any sensible government would look at".
	I suggest that they need to get their house in order first.

Tom Brake: I thank the shadow Home Secretary, but maybe she would like to intervene again and confirm whether she agrees with the shadow Chancellor that overtime and shift work savings are something that
	"any sensible government would look at".

Yvette Cooper: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman is inviting interventions, because we have said that it is right to examine how the police work. However, will he confirm that his party's pledge of 3,000 additional officers was made when the now Deputy Prime Minister said that although financial circumstances were extremely difficult, the position of the police was so important that there would be 3,000 additional police officers as part of his party's manifesto commitment?

Tom Brake: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for intervening and putting on record the Labour party policy on policing-that it is right to examine how the police work. That is as close to a policy statement as we are going to get tonight.
	The debate could have been an opportunity to discuss the coalition's programme of police reform and budget reductions, and to contrast that with the Opposition's track record and future plans. Regrettably, the Opposition did not grasp that opportunity. Instead, we had the usual "too fast and too deep" or, alternatively, "too far and too fast" line from the shadow Home Secretary, peppered with lame police and justice themed jokes, recycled from an earlier speech. When will she accept that saying that the coalition is going too far, too fast does not amount to a policy for the Labour party? If she wants to be taken seriously, she will have to work out her party's policy before she next stands at the Dispatch Box.

Graham Jones: The Government speak of reform of the police force: of front-line services and of back-office management. However, "reform" is a euphemism that the Government use for the most drastic cuts to one of our most vital public services.
	Actions speak louder than words, and the public will judge the Government on their actions and their decision to cut the police budget by 20%. The Government speak of reform, but the reality is deep and damaging cuts, which will drastically affect the front line of our police force.
	We should not underestimate the scale of the cuts. Almost a quarter of a million people are employed by 43 police forces in England and Wales. The Association of Chief Police Officers has put a figure on how the Government's 20% cut is likely to translate into the number of officers on the street. It estimates that 28,000 jobs will be lost as a result of the cuts. Of those, 12,000 will be police officers and 16,000 will be so-called civilian staff. That represents a fall of around 12% in overall staff numbers, with 8% of officers losing their jobs.
	The Government's Winsor review states that the taxpayer will save £485 million over three years as a result of those cuts, but at what cost? Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary has said that more than two thirds of all police force staff in England and Wales are employed in front-line roles, but that not all are necessarily visible. It stated that the front line is,
	"not just what you notice, but it's also what you rely on."
	We must not make a clinical distinction between front-line and back-office policing. That is too crude. We must not confuse visibility with deployment.
	HMIC found that 95% of police officers are either on the front line or working in important middle-office roles in-for example, intelligence gathering or operation planning. Even if the Government's claim that cuts of 20% would affect only back-office roles were true, those middle and back-office roles are not simply disposable assets. Cuts to middle and back-office roles will inevitably have an effect on the ability of those on the front line to do their jobs.
	The Prime Minister said:
	"There is no reason for there to be fewer front-line officers."-[ Official Report, 30 March 2011; Vol. 526, c. 335.]
	I would like to echo the words of Steve Finnigan, our chief constable. He said that preventing cuts from hitting the front line would prove challenging. He went further, saying that it would be impossible to protect the front line. He was asked this week whether the Government's cuts mean that he will have to reduce front-line policing and he replied, "I absolutely am." Chief Constable Finnigan is ACPO's lead officer on performance management. Does the Home Secretary think that he is wrong? Does she think that Chief Constable Finnigan of ACPO and Lancashire police is not managing his force correctly?
	The point is simple, and we are hearing it from forces throughout the country. We simply cannot make cuts of 20% without hitting front-line services. Our police force is one of our most vital public services. Those officers do some of the hardest jobs in the most demanding circumstances and the Government have wholly underestimated their commitment and dedication.
	The Government's so-called reforms will inevitably have an impact on the police service for years to come. The Government promised that there would be no centrally determined job losses-I suppose that that is technically true. Instead, the Government are responsible for the heavy front-loaded cuts, leaving the inevitable job losses in the hands of local authorities and the police.
	The priority must be to protect the visibility and availability of police forces in our local communities. However, my constituents are far from optimistic about the so-called reforms. Lancashire Police Federation has said that, in the light of cuts, the force will be hit doubly with job losses and pay cuts, about which we have already heard.

Graham Jones: I would like to finish, please. Plenty of other hon. Members wish to speak.
	John O'Reilly, chairman of Lancashire Police Federation, said:
	"Lancashire is a top performing force because of its workforce."
	John goes on to say that
	"if the Government keep bashing us, all they are doing is opening up the door for criminals to make life more difficult."
	Figures put to the Lancashire police authority suggest a drastic reduction in the number of officers, which would put Lancashire's officer strength at its lowest since 2003. In the period since 2003, Lancashire has experienced the greatest fall in crime, and I would not like to go back to 2003 crime levels. However, the cuts will result in an eight-year low in the number of police officers on Lancashire's streets.
	Everyone supports sensible reform, but the Government are hitting our police forces hard, and it will be to the detriment of our local communities. My constituents are concerned that cuts to our already stretched police force will be an open invitation for criminals to commit more crime. Do the Government really think that crime levels will not rise with the police force stretched, understaffed and under-resourced? Do they honestly think that antisocial behaviour will not increase, and that the safety in our streets will not be put into question as a result of there being fewer officers on the beat?
	Two thirds of the British public share those concerns and, to date, the Government have done nothing to put those concerns to rest. People are clearly concerned that reduced police funding will have detrimental effects, and at the same time, the Government are prepared to spend £40 million or thereabouts on electing police commissioners.
	Furthermore, there has been a two-year delay on the decision on whether police community support officers will continue. My constituents are worried not only about police cuts, but about the Home Office budgets that affect PCSOs. This is not just a numbers game. The Government seem happy to cut our police force by a fifth, but have they paid any thought to the experience and expertise of the PCSOs who will be lost as a result of those cuts?
	The Home Secretary must realise that she cannot make drastic cuts of 20% to the police budget without losing some of our most experienced and dedicated officers from the front line. The Government must think again on the scale and pace of the cuts. They are going too far, too fast.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Dawn Primarolo: I call Alok Sharma.

Alok Sharma: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker for calling me to contribute to this very important debate.
	Since the start of this Parliament, we have had numerous Opposition day debates on a range of subjects, but the core of every debate is always the same-public spending and public sector reform-and the Labour party always falls back and repeats the same tired mantra that the coalition is cutting too fast and too far.
	Of course, to date, the Opposition have offered no alternative. They have no credible policies to speak of and there is still no ink on the Leader of the Opposition's blank sheet of policy paper. Perhaps there is an untidy smudge, because after all, in February, he and the shadow Chancellor tried to instil some discipline in the shadow ministerial ranks by asking all potential commitments to be cleared by the Labour high command. That discipline, however, was in tatters in no time. Over the past few weeks, Labour has opposed £50 billion of savings proposed by the coalition, and made £12 billion-and rising-of unfunded spending commitments. That is no economic policy; it is voodoo economics.
	To understand what Labour would have done had it been in government, we need to look back at its plans. The coalition inherited planned spending cuts from Labour of £14 billion in 2011-12, and the coalition savings amount to £16 billion for the same period, which is a ratio of 9:10. It is all very well Labour Members moaning about the level and pace of cuts, and the frontloading of savings, but the fact is that they planned to do exactly the same.
	It is all very well the shadow Home Secretary wailing about police numbers, but before the general election-a number of colleagues have alluded to this-her colleague, the former Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), made the point that he could not guarantee police numbers if Labour were re-elected and returned to office. It is all very well the shadow Home Secretary attacking the Winsor review, as she did again today, but her colleague, the former Police Minister, the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), who is not in the Chamber, confirmed that Labour planned to cut police overtime if it returned to office. I do not understand-and I guess all Government Members do not understand-why the Labour party and the shadow Home Secretary oppose the Winsor review.
	The shadow Home Secretary may well moan about cuts generally, but she should remember, as do many outside the House, that the Government of whom she was a member created the mess and the record deficit that the coalition is trying to fix. Just for the record, and because Labour Members still do not get it after 12 months in opposition, let us remember Labour's legacy: the biggest deficit in the developed world, and £120 million paid out every day in interest alone by the British taxpayer. That is three and half times the total that we spend on policing in the UK.
	Have the British people ever had an apology from Labour for creating that toxic financial mess? No. And what of the Tweedledum and Tweedledee of Labour's decade of destructive debt? The right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) seems to have abandoned the House completely-I do not think that we have seen in him here in recent times-and in his utterances, the shadow Chancellor seems to be morphing into the Labour Prime Minister of the late '70s, saying, "Deficit? What structural deficit?" That is where we have come to.
	A few weeks ago, the shadow Home Secretary turned up in my constituency in a marginal ward to moan about cuts in front-line policing and to worry my constituents-what a surprise with local elections due in May. To get her facts she chose, rather unwisely, to listen to the apparatchiks, dinosaurs and deficit deniers who currently comprise the Labour party in Reading.  [ Interruption. ] Oh, the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) has met them! They are the same folk who managed, between 2002 and 2010, to increase Reading council's debt from £41 million to an eye-watering £200 million, with no debt-reduction plan in sight-that sounds familiar does it not? There was £1 million of taxpayers' money wasted on consultants here and £1.4 million to pay for full-time union officials there, but then Labour has always been very good at frittering away taxpayers' money.
	Had the shadow Home Secretary bothered to speak to the chief constable of Thames Valley police before her visit to Reading, she would have heard a different story. She could perhaps have Googled, as she is doing now, and seen the stories in the press from February. What is absolutely clear is that, despite having to make savings, Thames Valley police has made it clear that it will not cut the resources committed to neighbourhood policing and patrols. That is its commitment to visible policing-protecting the front line. It is finding savings by removing management layers and collaborating successfully with the neighbouring Hampshire police in key areas to save back and middle-office costs. Examples include a single, shared IT department that will save millions of pounds and shared firearms and dog training. It is collaborating with other forces in areas such as air support, witness protection, specialist operations and technical support. While finding savings and protecting the front line, Thames Valley police is also increasing the number of special constables, having recruited 570 in the past six months alone.
	Thanks to Labour's budget deficit, police forces and other public services are having to find savings, but we should also remember, as a number of my colleagues on the Government side have said, that many in the private sector have had to find savings of more than 3%, 4% or 5% a year for the past few years. It is, as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has said, possible, and Thames Valley police is demonstrating that it can find savings and protect the front line at the same time. Let me take this opportunity to pay tribute to all the police officers and PCSOs in Reading who do such a great job and are so dedicated to serving the local community.
	In conclusion, this is just another cynical Opposition motion. It demonstrates that Labour is not ready for a grown-up discussion about tackling its budget deficit and I will be voting against it this evening.

Siobhain McDonagh: I shall concentrate my remarks on what is happening in my part of south London and in the Metropolitan police area, where there is a serious undermining of the credibility of senior police officers at the moment, because of their collusion with the Mayor and deputy Mayor in suggesting that there are no cuts to safer neighbourhoods teams.
	First, let me say that I am truly obsessed by police numbers, and I am joined in that obsession by the 74,000 people who also live in my constituency-people who voted Labour, Conservative or Liberal, or who did not vote at all; men and women; people of all races; people who have come to this country recently and people who were born in this country, perhaps in south London. All those people are obsessed with police numbers because their top concern is their personal safety and their desire to feel safe from crime. I am talking about crime numbers and the fear of crime.
	We in the House often forget that there has been a revolution in policing in the past 10 years. There has been a rowing back of the police policy of 50 years-the policy of getting off the street, out of the neighbourhood and into the panda car, to be with the blue light and not with the old lady on the street or the young guys down the street who did not know police officers' names and increasingly came into conflict with them.
	In the past 10 years we have seen an enormous change in the relationship between the Metropolitan police and the communities that make up London. All communities now want more police and they all believe that antisocial behaviour and crime need to be tackled. More people are also prepared to give evidence-to stand up and be brave in the face of some of the most shocking crimes that we have seen recently in London. Operation Trident, dealing with black crime, has also been a fantastic success.
	However, that success does not come out of thin air; it comes from politicians-yes, politicians-making decisions about policing and saying, sometimes in the face of opposition from leading police officers, "We want to get back to community policing and we want to introduce safer neighbourhood police teams." I give credit to the former Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett), for introducing safer neighbourhood teams and police community support officers. His decisions were sometimes derided, but those initiatives have brought about the biggest increase in confidence in policing and the biggest reduction in crime in modern times, all because of those simple things that we all know to be true, irrespective of our political ideologies.
	For policing to work, it has to be about community. People have to know who their police officers are and to feel that they can give information to them, because the police can never sort out crime on their own. They need all of us with them, and that is what the safer neighbourhood teams were beginning to do. Were they perfect? Did they all do the right things? No, certainly not. Indeed, I have spent most of the last 10 years fighting with my safer neighbourhood teams, because I have not liked their shift patterns, nor have I agreed that they should be out more at 9 o'clock in the morning than at 9 o'clock at night, and that goes for Mondays as much as for Saturdays or Sundays. Indeed, when my dad was dying, I found the energy to sit all my safer neighbourhood teams down, along with all the trade unions, and say, "You have to change these practices." Is the Home Secretary right to look at police practices? Yes, she is; but in doing that, she also has to say that we need to keep safer neighbourhood teams on our streets.
	In my constituency those officers are in decline, yet the area commander and the leadership of the Met deny that this is happening. Currently, eight out of my 10 safer neighbourhood teams are not fully staffed. They have gone down to one PC, and none has a full complement of police community support officers. That is not something that I have dreamt up or that a disgruntled police officer has told me-although many are willing to tell me-but something that can be found on the Merton police service's website. Consultations begin all the time on what safer neighbourhood policing should look like, but the whole drift and drive are about reducing team numbers, merging and deciding that some areas are not worthy of their team, because they are not crime-ridden enough. However, as far as I am concerned, people in every ward pay their taxes and they deserve to have their neighbourhood police team.
	If the Government and the Mayor believe that the cuts should fall on safer neighbourhood teams, let me say this: stand up and say it. Do not pretend and do not lie, because the consequences will be enormous, and if we row back on people's confidence in the police, we will all have a problem.
	I was watching the BBC's nightly London news programme back in February when I saw my good friend Councillor Martin Whelton talking about how his safer neighbourhood team was being merged with the team in Longthornton, and how the two police panels had been merged. Later in the same news item I saw Mr Ian McPherson, the Assistant Commissioner-whom I have never met-explain that that was not happening. The local councillor on the ground and the members of the panels were saying, "Yes, this is happening," but the Assistant Commissioner was saying, "No, it isn't", so I sought to clarify the situation. On 18 February, I wrote to Mr McPherson to say:
	"I write further to my discussions with the Area Commander of Merton Police Service, Mr Wolfenden, and your interview on BBC London on Thursday February 17th, in which you suggested that there were no plans to reduce the size of Safer Neighbourhood Teams.
	As my colleague, Councillor Martin Whelton, suggested in the news report from Mitcham, the evidence on the ground contradicts the content of your TV interview. I am personally aware that the Longthornton and Pollards Hill teams have now merged and only have one sergeant, both having only one PC. In addition, I am also aware that a PC was removed from the Lavender team and transferred to Graveney. As you will be aware, the concentration of crime and anti-social behaviour in the London Borough of Merton is within the Mitcham and Morden constituency, with high levels of crime and fear of crime in Lavender, Cricket Green, Figges Marsh and Pollards Hill. If you were to reorganise the police officers to match this need, those wards would be receiving great, not less, cover.
	I have also been informed by officers at all levels within the Merton Service, that there is no point to argue for the continuation of the ten teams in my constituency as this cannot be sustained due to the need to cut back on sergeants within the Metropolitan Police Service. The need to reduce the number of officers and the inability to sustain the Safer Neighbourhood Teams was also contained on the Merton Voluntary Service Council website, who themselves were informed that there needed to be cuts in sergeants and police officers.
	Given the evidence on the ground, and concern of local councillors and residents, I would be very grateful if you might meet with me in my constituency to discuss these matters further. I am concerned that there are changes being undertaken on the ground that you do not appear to be aware of. I would be happy to arrange a meeting with councillors and concerned local residents where we could discuss these matters."
	That letter was written on 18 February. To date, I have not received the courtesy of a reply. In getting no response, I am not offended personally, but I am offended on behalf of my constituents, who fear crime and want to keep their police officers.
	I would ask for a modicum of honesty in this matter. It is absolutely right to look at how a big public service like the police works. The desire for continuing efficiency is absolutely right, but the idea that police officers can be taken off the street and be put back in cars at the same time as continuing to reduce crime itself and, more importantly, the fear of crime is a complete lie and a fantasy. We should stop these lies.

Nigel Mills: This is the fourth time in my short career in the House that I have spoken in a policing debate and, sadly, the second time I have done so while a murder investigation is ongoing in my constituency. That makes it a good time for me to pay tribute to the police for their hard work. Large-scale and difficult investigations like this one after the senseless murder of young Jia Ashton in Somercotes a couple of weeks ago help us all to appreciate how hard a job the police sometimes have.
	It is important to put our debate on policing into context. We are debating the subject in the shadow of the most difficult public finance situation in peacetime history. As we look through these large and confusing numbers, it is important to realise, as my hon. Friend the Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma) just explained, that the Opposition's last financial plan when they were in government involved them in about 90% of the spending reductions for this financial year-a difference of only £2 billion, which they spent many times over. They cannot get away with saying that if they were in power we would not have to face the huge savings that need to be made or the huge cuts that need to be found. In fact, neither of the main parties at the last election pledged to make no reduction in police funding or police numbers. Moreover, the last Labour Home Secretary-we have already had three shadow Home Secretaries in this Parliament-admitted that police numbers would fall under Labour as well.
	The public do not much enjoy listening to us throwing blame around the Chamber. They want to hear us talk about what the Government should be doing to ensure that we have the efficient and effective policing that we need. The Government might have passed a Bill stating that there would be no reductions in uniformed police officers, but I am not sure whether we could have recommended such a Bill or whether it would have worked or been at all sensible. We have all seen the awful trend of having uniformed officers working at back-office functions for which they are not trained and for which they are probably overpaid to do. What we need is something different. We want the highly trained police officers to be out on the streets, not doing support or back-office roles, however we want to define them.
	The Government clearly can and should do certain things. I would like to talk about three particular examples: the funding for each force, reforms to pay and conditions and taking steps to strip away bureaucracy. I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is still in the Chamber. She has heard me say this before, but I think it is important to bear in mind the difference in funding levels. Let me point out yet again that for many years Derbyshire has lost about £5 million a year -which equates roughly to 160 officers-because the last Government did not implement their own funding formula establishing the requirement for each force.
	I realise that it was not possible for any Government to solve the problem in the time available, but I urge the Home Secretary, when the next funding round arrives, either to start to implement the existing funding formula or to introduce a new one. It cannot be right for us to keep saying "Here is a formula; here is the amount that you want; oh, sorry, you cannot have it". That simply is not sustainable. We are led to believe that some forces do not have to work under the same financial pressures as Derbyshire and several other authorities in the east midlands.
	I may gain more agreement from my colleagues on the Front Bench when I speak of the need to reform pay and conditions. The point has been well made that at a time when more than 75% of police budgets is spent on pay, there is a clear link: if we do not reform pay and conditions, we shall have to accept a smaller head count. Although imposing a two-year pay freeze is not a pleasant task, reforming police allowances and overtime payments must be the way forward. I say that cautiously, as the police service parliamentary scheme enables me to spend Wednesdays touring Chesterfield with members of the police force. I hope that, if they read the report of my speech, they will understand what I was trying to say. I am happy to debate the issue with them.
	I urge the Government to make some progress on the Winsor review. The last thing that any of us want is for police forces to have to make cuts and savings and then, when the final recommendations of the review are published, to discover that the problem was not as bad as had been feared, and that they need not have made those savings. A degree of certainty on pay and conditions and the pension position will help everyone. I do not think that any of us work at our best with a huge amount of uncertainty hanging over us for longer than necessary.
	We also need to strip away bureaucracy, and during their 11 months in power the Government have made considerable progress in that regard. We all want as many man hours as possible to be spent on the front line. I believe that Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary defines the front line as officers
	"who directly intervene to keep people safe and enforce the law".
	I do not know whether others agree with that definition, but it strikes me as a reasonable form of words.
	The abolition of the police pledge, the reduction of bureaucracy and the granting of more discretion to the police to fight crime should be hugely welcomed. Talk of absolute police numbers is not the clearest way of discussing the issue; I think that what the public want to see is the right number of officers engaged in the right duties at the right times and in the right places, working in a smart manner.

Tom Brake: One issue that the hon. Gentleman and, indeed, other Members should consider is the amount of time spent by safer neighbourhood teams on petrol stations. I was appalled to discover that one BP garage in one ward was using 20% of the safer neighbourhood team's time to deal with drive-outs and incidences of shoplifting. I suggest that Members with petrol stations in their constituencies ask how much of the local safer neighbourhood teams' time is being spent in that way because they have not, for instance, ensured that CCTV is up to scratch, and that staff are properly trained to prevent shoplifting from becoming rife.

Nigel Mills: The hon. Gentleman has made a sensible point. I hope that the Government's decision not to increase fuel tax even more will not provide any further encouragement for thefts from petrol stations.
	Various reports have been quoted as saying that in 2009 only 14% of police officers' time was spent on patrol and 22% was spent on paperwork. That cannot be right: there must be scope for the police to work in a far smarter manner. According to Jan Berry's report-which has been referred to-about a third of police time is ineffective, and that demonstrates the scope for savings.
	I commend the work that Derbyshire police have done, and continue to do, in their "Moving Forward" savings programme. I recently had an opportunity to quiz the chief constable, the officer in charge of the change programme and various others about how they were approaching it, and to challenge them by suggesting some additional things that they could think about. I was impressed by how well on track they were, and how well they had thought everything through. They have managed to save £700,000 already by putting sergeants back in charge of evidence gathering and case preparation, and they have saved about £1 million through increasing regional collaboration. So there are things that all forces can do.

Nigel Mills: It would be impossible not to agree with that; it has to be the way forward for all the services that have interactions with each other to make those interactions more effective and to avoid the duplication that can arise.
	People must feel that the police are on their side. In the election campaign, I suspect that the following concern was expressed to every one of us time and again: "What do the police do? We never see them. They only want to tackle innocent motorists, and they don't tackle serious crimes." That is why the introduction of elected police commissioners-I have the pleasure of serving on the Public Bill Committee dealing with that-is a hugely powerful step. It is a way of saying, "Look, here is someone who can ensure that what the police do is what the public actually want them to do, and not what the chief constable, or the Government, might want them to do. Here is someone who is accountable to the public for delivering on police priorities."
	Finally, let me say that it would have been a far more constructive use of parliamentary time if today we had debated those aspects of the Winsor review that we welcome or have concerns about. Instead, we have had what must be about the third debate on police funding, which has more to do with playing party games before the local elections than trying to improve the police force. Let us instead look at the challenges the police face, and work constructively to get the best and the most efficient, but also the most effective, police force that we can for all our constituents.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Stephen Twigg: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills). He made a thoughtful and reflective speech, which, frankly, is in complete contrast to all the other speeches delivered from the Government Benches this afternoon. I was astonished by how relaxed the other Conservative and Liberal Democrat speakers were about the scale of the police cuts we are experiencing as a direct consequence of decisions made by this Government-by the Conservative party, which used to be described as the party of law and order, and the Liberal Democrats, who advocated extra police officers on top of the additional officers Labour introduced throughout our period in government.
	Between 1997 and last year, there was an increase of 17,000 in police numbers, and at one stroke this Government are making a reduction of 12,000. There is a very significant difference between that and the reductions we propose and absolutely acknowledge need to be made, as referred to in our motion, and as my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) made clear in her speech. The cuts under the 12% figure cited by Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary would be very different from those under the 20% figure that this Government are imposing on police forces up and down the country.
	I want to be brief in order to enable other Members to speak, so I will focus my remarks on the situation in Merseyside. Merseyside has already cut 200 officers and another 80 police staff. The force had a moratorium on recruitment during the previous financial year, and that continues. As a consequence, it anticipates a further reduction in officer numbers of 200. In other words, one in 12 officers in Merseyside will be lost in the space of just two years, and for the remaining period of this Parliament the force anticipates a total loss of 880 police officers and 1,000 police staff. In other words, one in five officers will go. I know from my discussions with the chief constable, with other senior officers and with front-line staff at the police stations in my constituency that they are doing their utmost to protect the front line, but they have said that because of the cuts in Government funding, front-line services will now be looked at.
	The Home Secretary said that local police forces had the option of increasing the council tax, and when I challenged her on whether she was advocating that, she was careful in her response. I wish to reiterate something that I have said in previous debates: the capacity of a local police force to secure additional funding by increasing the precept varies enormously from one police force to another. The key determinant of that variation is how deprived the local community is. Half of Surrey's funding for the police comes from central Government and half is raised locally, whereas 82% of Merseyside's police funding comes from central Government and only 18% is determined by local council tax. It does not take a mathematician to work out that the capacity of Merseyside police to raise additional funds locally is considerably less than that of the police in Surrey and in other parts of the country. The Merseyside force has made great strides in recent years in improving its efficiency and the quality of its service. That is why, although it is making efficiencies and will make further efficiencies, it is simply not going to possible for it to balance its books without cuts in the front-line service.
	I hope that the Minister will be able to say something about the importance of the work done by the safer schools partnerships and, in particular, by police working in schools. The previous Government piloted this programme in 2002, when I was a Minister in the then Department for Education and Skills, and it was brought into the mainstream in 2006. I imagine that hon. Members on both sides of the House will have seen the very positive work done by police in schools, not only to tackle bullying but to ensure higher attendance levels and lower truancy rates in schools. Last year, "Robby the Bobby", who is based at Lower Lane police station and who serves the Croxteth and Norris Green communities in my constituency, received the Queen's police medal in the Queen's birthday honours list. I want to pay tribute to him because he does great work, and I have seen that work. More importantly, however, I cite him because the work done by police in schools is so important. I would like to hear a reassurance from this Government that the safer schools programme is one to which they have the same commitment as the previous Government had.
	The Minister has responded to me on this point previously, but I ask him to respond again on the issue of the differential impact of police cuts on the poorest communities. I request him specifically to meet a Merseyside delegation of MPs and those from the police authority to discuss the issue, because we could make a real difference to the front-line service in Merseyside if we could reconsider the scale of the cuts and the unfairness involved in how they have a greater impact in a community such as mine than they do in a community such as the one that he represents.
	The main focus of tonight's debate is on the fact that by going beyond the 12% figure that Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary has set out, the Government are endangering the quality of front-line policing in all our constituencies, no matter which part of the country we represent. For that reason, I urge the Government to think again.

Mark Reckless: First, I should declare an interest as a member of the Kent police authority. In that capacity, I get very frustrated about some of the numbers that the Opposition throw around. The shadow Home Secretary said that Kent's police force had said that it was going to cut more than 500 officers, but it has not said that. The projection, once made, of 500 was on the basis of an assumption that the cut in grant was going to be significantly worse than it actually turned out to be.
	The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) set up this great contrast between the 12% cut that Labour is very happy about and the 20% cut that we are supposedly imposing, but he does not draw attention to two key differences between those figures. First, the 20% reduction is a real reduction rather than a cash reduction, so a two-year pay freeze accounts for a significant portion of it and helps to explain totally appropriate front-loading, because that is the period in which the pay freeze will take place. In addition, the 20% does not allow for a precept, and assumes that the precept falls as much as the central grant. If we take those two factors into account, the reduction in central Government grant represents a more generous settlement than the one that HMIC said it would be possible to deliver. That reflects the importance that we place on policing and on police numbers.
	The motion is predicated on the assumption that there will be a cut of 12,000 in the number of police officers because that is the number that ACPO has put out. However, that number was put out before Tom Winsor's report was published. It is a very long report, and I look forward to reaching its conclusion over the recess, but I have read quite a lot of it already. Tom Winsor is saying that, even for 2012-13, on the basis of his recommendations, there will be a further £200 million of savings, over and above those that police authorities and chief constables have already been pushing towards. If we generously assume that there will be add-on costs of about £50,000 per police officer, that would give us enough money for 4,000 officers. If we implement what Tom Winsor suggests in his interim report, we would get the number down from 12,000 to 8,000.
	That number will have to go through the national Police Negotiating Board, and there will doubtless be some pushback from the Police Federation and others, but in some areas Tom Winsor is actually being quite generous to the police in recognising the unique contribution that they make. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe), who is no longer in his place, has suggested that 40% of officers would lose £4,000 on the basis of what Winsor has said, but that is quite wrong. Tom Winsor's point was that, back in 1978, under Lord Edmund-Davies, a 9% shift allowance for unsocial hours was incorporated into the standard police pay. Tom Winsor went on to say that, logically, we should therefore reduce by 9% the pay for the 43% of officers whose role did not require them to work unsocial hours. Rather than recommending that, however, he has now left them as they are and proposed an additional 10% shift allowance for hours worked between 8 pm and 6 am.
	Another area in which Tom Winsor has been very generous to the police is that of the new expertise and professional accreditation allowance. Most police have been operating on the assumption that the special priority payments, which were introduced in 2003 and which have been quite divisive, would not be continued. If we take into account the additional allowance, which will be more costly than the special priority payments, we shall see a net increase in pay, even though most officers probably assumed that they would not get a special priority payment. Perhaps there will be a bit of give and take in the negotiations but, in those two areas in particular, Tom Winsor's proposals are more generous than many officers would have expected.
	I should also like to touch on the ability of police forces to make savings. We also heard about this from my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart). Most organisations try to find savings and do things more efficiently year by year. In policing, however, there was an increase in grant every year from central Government. Police forces were able to increase their numbers, deal with particular issues and have more police tackling problem areas without having to find savings in other areas to fund those activities.
	In Kent, we found a deputy chief constable who had been delivering a fantastic programme in Norfolk and finding very significant savings, all of which were able to be invested in the front line. Now, in tougher times, Kent is looking to strip out some of the inefficiencies. There might be too many people in central teams, or the intelligence area might be top heavy, so we will make savings in those areas. We are also going to work with Essex to form a single major and organised crime division, which will bring together a lot of the specialist areas. That will enable us to iron out the peaks and troughs in demand and deliver at least as good a service using fewer officers.
	When I first joined Kent police authority, I was concerned that we were not going out to find the savings and ask the difficult questions. Partly that is because police authorities are not elected, so there is no direct connection with the electorate that requires delivering the best possible policing while minimising the precepts. If one finds savings, asks difficult questions and tries to get the police to do things in a different way from the one they are used to, and which they perhaps prefer, that will always be quite difficult and with no direct electoral accountability, there is not necessarily the motivation to do that.
	In my police authority, in the past year or two at least, people have worked very hard to find savings and it has one of the lowest precepts in the country. I believe that in many police authorities across the country that have had consistent grant increases year on year, there is scope to find savings and to work together much more. There is no justification for having 43 different IT systems. A large amount of the police budget is police pay, but that is partly because the police deliver almost everything themselves with a direct labour force. In many areas of the public sector, we have found significant savings through outsourcing. Cleveland police has a control centre run by the private sector-it is outsourced-but it is quite rare in policing to make those more radical changes to deliver things as cheaply and efficiently as one can by going outside the police service. A direct electoral mandate would press people to deliver policing as well as they could for as little as they could. There is significant scope for savings and I believe that reductions can be made while protecting the front line and delivering the police service that the country deserves.

Jack Dromey: I pay tribute to our police service. It is quite remarkable how it has evolved over the years, learning sometimes difficult lessons of history from Scarman to Macpherson. Our Labour Government backed the police service and invested massively, with 17,000 more police officers and 16,000 police community support officers. An admirable model of community policing has led to a record fall in crime, and nowhere can that be seen better than in West Midlands police authority, under the leadership of Chief Constable Chris Sims.
	I have seen at first hand just how effective our police service is. In Castle Vale, the neighbourhood tasking group deals with problems of antisocial behaviour and there is excellent dialogue between the police and the local community, so that the young kids now go and play in a park and the older residents, who were complaining, enjoy their environment. When there was an outbreak of robberies in shops in Stockland Green, the police mounted an excellent operation and effective intelligence led to the arrests of those responsible. When there were two terrible knife murders in my constituency, including that of one young man who died on his doorstep in the arms of his mother, a huge police operation, with support from the community, led to arrests.
	The community values its community policing and there is complete dismay about the impact of the Government's cuts on our police service, not least because the first duty of any Government is to ensure the safety and security of our communities. It is therefore simply wrong for the Government to impose massive front-loaded cuts on the West Midlands police service that will lead to 2,400 people going, including 300 police officers who are going right now under regulation A19. It is absolutely wrong that the high-need, high-unemployment west midlands is being hit more than twice as hard as the leafy glades of Surrey and that Ministers pretend that there is no impact on front-line policing. Policing is about much more than just those who are out on the front line: the police team working together is key. Some of the earlier references to areas such as child protection, domestic violence and counter-terrorism involve a great deal of inter-agency collaboration and intelligence gathering.
	Having said that, we need to move beyond the numbers -not just how many are going, but who they are and why they matter. Sergeant Dave Hewitt, 32 years a police officer, being forced out at the age of 48, is a neighbourhood sergeant with an excellent team of neighbourhood police officers making their local community a safer place to live. Is he or is he not a front-line officer? Police Constable Ian Rees, 34 years a police officer, being forced out at the age of 55, is a motorway specialist making our motorways in the midlands a safer place to drive. Is he or is he not a front-line police officer?
	Detective Constable Tony Fisher, 33 years a police officer, being forced out at the age of 50, is a specialist in dealing with serious robbery. Only in the past couple of years, he mounted an exercise to track down the individual who was robbing pensioners at cash points and put that man away, and rightly so, for 13 years. He also tracked down the gang that used machetes to rob shops, with the leader of that gang going away for 17 years, and rightly so. The community is a safer place, thanks to him. Is he or is he not a front-line police officer?
	Detective Constable Tim Kennedy, 31 years a police officer, is a specialist in serious acquisitive crime-burglaries and cars-with one of the best detection records anywhere in the midlands. Is he or is he not a front-line police officer? Inspector Mark Stokes, 33 years a police officer, is a specialist in designing out crime, with an outstanding track record. On the Four Towers estate in Birmingham, for example, there has been a 98% fall in what was a serious level of crime, thanks to the work that he has done. Is he or is he not vital to the front line?
	I am grateful to the Home Secretary for agreeing earlier that she will meet these A19 officers. She will find that they are the best in Birmingham and Britain. They will be sadly missed by the communities that they have served so well over many years. It is wrong-plain wrong-for the Government to say to the men and women being forced out under A19, "Thanks for your past loyalty. Thanks for your outstanding service. Here is your notice." The Government have got to think again.

Mark Pawsey: Notwithstanding the remarks that we have just heard from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey), the Opposition, whose motion we are debating this evening, know that it is not possible to have any discussion about any public sector service without having some regard to the national economic context. Colleagues on the Government Benches have mentioned the £120 million a day that the Government are spending on interest, which puts into context the £35 million a day that we are currently spending on policing, the matter under debate. All sectors of public service must be subject to review, and no sector can be immune. Policing must play its part.
	It is entirely appropriate that cost reduction should be accompanied by Government reform of the public services. No sector should be immune from the need to reform, and policing must play its part. I therefore reject the proposition in the Opposition motion that does nothing other than criticise the steps that the Government have taken. It offers no alternative proposal. The motion is completely silent on what the Opposition would do to make policing play its part in reducing the burden of public expenditure or reforms to the service. We might therefore assume that the Opposition are happy to carry on spending as they were before and make no change to public service, but we would be wrong, because the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) has said that all departments, police included, would need "to make savings". The former Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), has said that Labour in government would have cut spending and reduced police numbers.
	What are the Government actually doing? They are making the police accountable to their communities, cutting increasing costs, removing targets and paperwork and, critically, restoring to police officers the discretion they once had. In my constituency of Rugby we are governed by Warwickshire police, a force in which, notwithstanding the Opposition's remarks, police numbers fell between 2004 and 2009, so there have not been massive increases in police numbers under the Labour Government. Warwickshire police are currently vacating an expensive and unnecessary force headquarters to save costs, and the chief constable is doing the right thing by focusing on public protection, providing service to the community and increasing productivity on the front line.
	One of the reasons I was keen to speak in the debate is that my brother is a sergeant in Warwickshire police with more than 20 years' service. We often get together and speak about our respective roles. He tells me how he and his colleagues were frustrated by the previous Government's tick-box approach and the massive increase in paperwork and bureaucracy that resulted in their spending less time on patrol than they did filling in forms. They were not doing what they had been trained to do-to protect the public. As a parliamentary candidate, I spent a Friday night accompanying an officer on patrol and saw just how much paperwork he had to complete.
	The police look forward to many of the Government's proposals and reforms, in particular the one to get rid of the stop and encounter form. Officers appreciate that services must accept some of the reduction in expenditure and in the cost burden of the public sector. There are three significant issues that they are having to deal with. First, the restructuring in costs will lead to fewer people being able to support them in the back office and the pay freeze. Secondly, the provisions of the Winsor report, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) has just referred, will change the way they operate and the structure of their pay. Thirdly, over and above those effects officers will also be affected by the Hutton report, which in time will lead to less generous pension provision. I must tell the Home Secretary and the policing Minister that the combination of those three factors means that the morale of our officers is lower than it has been for some time. They understand the need for change, but they feel that they are burdened by those three changes all coning along at one time.
	I was delighted to hear the Home Secretary acknowledge in her opening remarks that we have the finest police service in the world. I hope that the Minister, in summing up, will express some words about the regard in which the public hold the police, who are doing a difficult job at a difficult time. I hope that he will provide some reassurance to officers who are committed to service, such as my brother and his colleagues, that their commitment will be recognised. I hope that he will ensure that those officers who work hard and from time to time put themselves on the line can feel positive about the valuable role they play and can focus on the key task of protecting the public.
	In conclusion, the Government are right to be taking their current action on policing. It represents just one of a series of very difficult decisions that they have been obliged to take over the past 11 months, all of which in the long term will provide better and more efficient services to the public of this country.

Keith Vaz: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey), who spoke about not only his constituency's interest in the debate, but that of his family. He can report back to his brother that he was able to raise those concerns in such a debate.
	It is commendable that both the Home Secretary and the shadow Home Secretary have sat through the entire debate, the feature of which is that Members on both sides have talked about not just the headline figures, but policing in their constituencies. On balance, Opposition Members have said that the cuts are going to affect policing negatively, and Government Members have said that the cuts are required to some extent because they can make the police more accountable, transparent and efficient.
	In four weeks' time, the right hon. Lady will celebrate her year in office as the first Conservative Home Secretary in 13 years. She has got used to the fact that when she enters the Chamber for policing debates, she does not get a standing ovation, but importantly we have heard what the Government propose to do and what the Opposition have said they would do in similar circumstances.
	The Home Affairs Committee produced a report on police finances, and it was unanimous. The hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) is our resident expert on policing matters along with my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Alun Michael), and the Committee concluded that there would be significantly fewer police service staff once the proposals were implemented. That is certainly backed up by all the other stakeholder organisations-be they ACPO, the Police Federation or other organisations that have commented on the matter. The key test for the Government is whether having fewer staff will make the police force more efficient.
	I do not deny any incoming Government the right to put forward proposals to the British people and a scheme that they say will provide a better service for less money, but it will be some time before we find out what those key indicators are. As several Members have pointed out, crime is at a record low, and the question is, once the proposals are implemented, whether crime will rise. That is the challenge for this Government.
	We also know that the Government's proposals have still not been completed. There is an ambitious target not just on police finances, but on the new landscape of policing, and the election of police commissioners will have an impact on how policing operates-everyone accepts that it will. The new landscape will result in the abolition of the Serious Organised Crime Agency and the National Policing Improvement Agency, and the Home Affairs Committee is just about to undertake an inquiry into the likely new landscape.
	I think that we will have to return to the subject once the Government have completed their template. As I have said, it is absolutely the right of an incoming Government to say that they propose to use taxpayers' money in a way that will make the service more efficient, but my concern is that the template is not complete and, to some extent, the proposed cuts-or reductions, if we like to use that word-are a work in progress. We will not know the full effects until the rest of the landscape has been completed.
	What the Government are doing on procurement and on the reduction in bureaucracy is excellent. The Home Secretary says that she has taken on board Jan Berry's recommendations and appointed Chris Sims to take the matter forward, and that is a continuation of what the previous Government did. I see the previous Policing Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), is present, and whenever he got to the Dispatch Box when Labour was in government, he talked about cutting red tape. We on the Select Committee hope to look at Jan Berry's recommendations to see whether they have been implemented and whether red tape has been cut.
	Tomorrow, as the Home Secretary knows, we have the new permanent secretary at the Home Office before the Committee, and it is of course important to save money on procurement. I would like to have seen more done under the previous Government to bring procurement under much greater central control. The right hon. Lady talked about local decision making, but I understand that vehicles are now the subject of central planning, so the Home Office is saying, "You can buy these vehicles, because this is the best possible deal that we have been able to make." If that can be done with vehicles, why not mobile phones or all other aspects of procurement? Of course we would like to see local police forces collaborate-the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood reminded me that a conference on procurement is coming up in the near future, co-sponsored by Essex and Kent police authorities-and we want local decision making, but I cannot understand why the Home Office does not produce a procurement catalogue that has the best possible prices available and encourage all local police forces to buy from it. That is something that we will have to look forward to in future.
	My final point, which my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) made better than anyone else, is that we need to stop consulting only chief constables about what is happening. The people who really matter are the public. In his recent speech to the Institute for Public Policy Research, the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice rejected the idea of a royal commission on policing, citing Harold Wilson's comment that royal commissions take minutes to set up but years to report. We do not need to wait years to hear about the expectations of the public, who must be consulted.
	The Select Committee intends to consult the public in an online poll on the five key things that they want police officers and the police force to do. Once we have those conclusions, I hope that they will feed into the Government's thinking on how the new landscape operates. Without consulting the public on their expectations, there is no point in having this debate. The chief constables have a vested interest-they want to protect their budgets. Police authorities want things to stay as they are, and everyone else involved has, to some extent, the same interest. However, it is the public to whom we are accountable on policing, and therefore, in the end, it is the public to whom we have to listen.

Vernon Coaker: I join the Home Secretary in the tribute that she paid to the police for their hard work and courage, which we have seen, tragically, over the past couple of days.
	This debate takes place at a time when the police feel undervalued and under attack by this Government. Let me start by laying out a few facts. There is a 20% cut from central Government, with the highest percentage of that cut falling in the first two years, and the Government implementing it with no real definition of the front line. That will mean the loss of over 12,000 police officers. In every region of England and Wales, police officers and staff will be lost in every community. This means the loss of over 15,000 police staff-again, right across our country in every single community. As we heard so eloquently from my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey), it also means the loss of over 2,000 of the most experienced officers.
	These officers are not going because chief officers want them to go-they are being forced to go because of the need to cut costs. The functions of most of these officers are not in the back office but on the front line. Front-line detectives are gone, with one detective saying "I don't want to go and I'm absolutely gutted." Front-line response officers are gone, along with neighbourhood sergeants, one commenting that the claim that cuts would not affect the front line was absolute rubbish. Firearms officers are gone from the front line, along with crime reduction officers and public order officers-and so the list goes on. These are just some of the front-line posts lost because of the cuts.
	To listen to the Home Secretary, one would think that there is no impact on police officers-that there are no cuts on the front line-but her case is completely undermined by last week's report by Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary, which showed that 95% of police officers and police community support officers did not work in the back office, with only 5% doing so.  [ Interruption. ] The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice scoffs, but I refer him to page 4 of the report, which shows clearly that the percentage of officers and PCSOs who are in the back office is 5%. If he wants to take issue with that, he must take issue with HMIC. That figure drives a coach and horses through the Home Office's justification for its proposals. The proposals were undermined by Sir Denis O'Connor, the chief inspector of constabulary, who said that it would be difficult to protect the front line. The Government plough on regardless, oblivious to the growing chorus of anxiety and deaf to those who are expressing increasing concern and alarm. "We know best," is the motto of the Home Secretary and the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice.
	My right hon. and hon. Friends have pointed out the impact of the police cuts across the country. My right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Alun Michael) praised the work of specialist officers, but pointed out the threat to the reduction in violent crime. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott) spoke about the impact on Northumbria, where there is a 41% cut in police staff. My hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones) pointed out the cuts to hundreds of police officers and police staff in the Lancashire constabulary. My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) pointed out the importance of the introduction of neighbourhood policing and safer neighbourhood teams, which was one of the successes of the previous Government. The budgets pose a threat to those teams. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) spoke about the impact of the cuts on Merseyside, where one in five officers is to go. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) said that the jury is out on the current proposals. He was right to point out that crime is at a record low, but the question is whether it will keep falling. At a time when crime is at a record low, all this is put at risk.
	As the chief constable of South Yorkshire police, Meredydd Hughes, warned in a paper to his police authority, front-line posts and specialist officers will be lost, and there will be real risks to crime levels. He said:
	"A reduction in back office support will put an increased burden on operational officers detracting them from front-line duties."
	No doubt the Government will say, as they do when anybody disagrees with them, that he is just wrong. Well, I know Med Hughes and he is an excellent chief constable. He should be listened to and not dismissed. It is not just one chief constable. The chief constable of Lancashire police, Steve Finnigan, said on the "Today" programme last week, in answer to whether he would have to reduce front-line policing to meet the Government's budget cuts, "I absolutely am."
	Of course, the protection of the front line is made so much more difficult by the loss of police staff. Who will do the necessary administrative tasks? Who will do the necessary probation work or the court reports? We have seen examples across the country of officers being needed to do such tasks and being pulled away from the public and the front line. No reorganisation on this scale will protect the front line. We have already seen that in Warwickshire. Reflecting on the job losses in his area, Ian Francis, the chair of Warwickshire police authority, said:
	"The simple matter is yes, we are going to lose policemen from the front-line."
	The Police Federation, the Police Superintendents Association, chief officers and police authorities have all warned of the consequences of this Budget settlement. However, as with so many of their so-called reforms, the Government say that they know best. They believe that they know what is right and that they have to drive through all those who stand in the way of this so-called progress. Last week, the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice called those who oppose the Government's accountability changes and other reforms elitist. Well, I say that the Government are elitist in their flagrant disregard for anyone who disagrees with them and anyone who stands in their way. The police and the public are deeply worried by the cuts to policing.
	No one in this House of Commons, as far as I am aware, stood on a platform of having fewer police officers. The Liberals promised 3,000 more police officers-yet another broken promise. Individual Tory MPs up and down the country demanded more police officers. Tory MPs need to be sure what they are voting for, and so do Liberal Democrats.
	I say to the hon. Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) that 250 personnel will be gone in his police area. He should put that on the leaflet in the local election campaign. In Carshalton and Wallington, police officers and staff are going-that should be on the next Liberal Democrat "Focus" leaflet. In Reading West, 256 officers and 564 staff are going at Thames Valley police-its Member should put that on the next leaflet and say it is down to efficiency. Although the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) was more reasonable than others, he will still have to put on his election leaflets for the Amber Valley borough council election why he justifies 290 police officers and staff going in the area. I tell you what, Mr Speaker-I bet not many of them do put that on their leaflets.
	Up and down the country, people are watching- [Interruption.] The Home Secretary should listen to this. People are watching a Tory-led Government cutting police numbers and crime prevention projects. They are looking at a Tory-led Government who cannot find money for the police but can finds of millions of pounds extra for a democratic experiment in electing police and crime commissioners that nobody wants and for which the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice has yet to produce one shred of evidence.  [Interruption.] Are you enjoying this? The Government were so embarrassed that the responses to the consultation paper commissioned to show how many people were in favour of elected commissioners were not published. Shall I tell the House why? Because of the 900 people asked, so few were in favour that the Government were embarrassed to publish the responses.
	The cuts to the police budget are too fast and too deep. The Home Secretary and the Prime Minister need to think again. They need to put aside ideology, listen to the many voices of concern and change course. The Government are looking to cut costs, but it is communities up and down the country that will pay the price of an arrogant Government failing to stand up for policing and failing to stand up for the police.

Nick Herbert: First, I join other hon. Members including the shadow Police Minister in paying tribute to the police for the job that they do for the whole country in every constituency, particularly at this time when, as the House did earlier, we remember PC Ronan Kerr, who tragically lost his life serving the Police Service of Northern Ireland.
	We should always value the work that the police do and remember that they do a difficult and dangerous job, but none of that means that we can avoid the decisions that have been forced upon us by the need to deal with the deficit. My first point to Opposition Members is that they are silent about the savings that can be driven by police forces working together and individually that reach beyond the savings identified in the HMIC report. That report stated that savings of more than £1 billion a year were possible while front-line services were protected. It did not examine the potential savings that could be made through, for instance, police forces working together to procure goods and equipment-some £350 million on top of that figure.
	As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary pointed out, there are 2,000 different IT systems in our forces, employing 5,000 staff. I welcome the comment of the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), that we were right to examine such procurement. He should know, and I know he does, that we have already laid regulations to drive collective procurement by forces to save money.
	I repeat for the benefit of the Opposition, who have not heard or understood the point, that those savings are in addition to those identified by the inspectorate, and that they can be made by police forces working more effectively together. The right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) criticised that approach when my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary talked about it earlier. Do the Opposition Front Benchers not support that collective approach to procuring goods and equipment, and why did they not take it in their 13 years in government?
	Let us examine another matter on which the Opposition are completely silent, which is the proposed savings that we have set out in relation to pay. Any organisation in which three quarters of the costs rest in the pay bill has to look to control that bill when resources are tight. That is the responsible thing to do. That is why we have said that, in common with other public services, we expect the police to be subject to a two-year pay freeze. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) was right that that directly answers the point about the savings that we require forces to make being higher in the first and second years than in the third and the fourth. In those years, we propose that another £350 million should be saved through the pay freeze. Here is a question for the Opposition: do they support that pay freeze? If not, they would put more jobs at risk in policing. They are adopting an irresponsible approach.
	What about the Winsor savings? Police officers should know that it is proposed to plough back the majority of the savings that Tom Winsor identified in his report on pay and conditions into new allowances to reward front-line service and specialist skills. We will consider those matters carefully in the recommendations of the Police Negotiating Board. Do the Opposition back those savings, for which police forces have not budgeted at the moment? Do they support those proposals in the Winsor review? Again, we do not know because the Opposition are silent on the matter.
	Let me explain for the benefit of the Opposition that the total effect of the savings of more than £500 million, on top of the savings that HMIC identified, add up to 10,000 officers. In opposing the pay reforms, the Opposition put those 10,000 jobs at risk. That is why their position is untenable.
	Several hon. Members mentioned the front line. Of course, it includes not only visible policing, but investigative units. However, the Opposition have again completely missed the point. The hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) shouts "smoke and mirrors" from a sedentary position, but he uses a fair bit himself when he claims that 5% of officers are in the back office. Does he expect officers to do IT and payroll? Those are back-office functions. The inspectorate says, "Look at the back and middle offices-the support functions-not the front line." How many police officers does the hon. Gentleman think are serving in the back and middle office? The same report tells him-I assume that he has read it. A fifth of officers and PCSOs are in the back and middle office. In case he cannot do the maths, that means that 30,000 police officers are not working on the front line, and we should begin looking for savings in the back and middle office so that we can protect front-line services.
	The Opposition mentioned Northumbria police and claimed that there would be an impact on front-line services. Chief Constable Sue Sim said:
	"I am absolutely committed to maintaining frontline policing and the services we offer to our communities."
	Every chief constable is saying the same. They are committed to doing everything they can to maintain front-line services.
	As the chief inspector of constabulary said, we must consider a total redesign of the way in which policing is delivered in this country. We must look at forces sharing services and collaborating. We must consider radical solutions, which will enable a better service to be delivered. Is the Labour party in favour of police forces outsourcing their services to the private sector? That is another matter on which it is silent. Some forces have contracted our their control rooms and their custody suites. Those are defined as being in the so-called front line. Is the Labour party in favour of those cost-saving measures? There is deafening silence from the Opposition when they are faced with difficult questions about how to drive value for money.
	There is silence again about bureaucracy. The Opposition spent 13 years tying up our police officers in red tape. All the shadow Chancellor could say about that when he was shadow Home Secretary is that he did not think it mattered that officers spent more time on paperwork than on patrol. Let me say to the Opposition that the Government think it does matter and we are determined to reduce red tape and improve productivity on the front line because we want police officers to be crime fighters, not form writers.
	Let us look at another matter in which the Opposition seem simply uninterested: how resources are deployed. Labour is only ever interested in how much money is spent rather than in how well it is spent. Why, therefore, do Labour Members have not the slightest interest in the fact that officer visibility and availability in the best-performing forces is twice that of the poorest-performing forces within the existing resource? Apparently, they are not interested in that. Government Members have consistently made the point that, even as resources contract and even as forces find savings, they can and should prioritise visible and available policing, and good forces are doing so.
	As we have heard from my hon. Friends, Kent is increasing numbers in neighbourhood policing teams, as is Gloucestershire, and Staffordshire is protecting them.

Nick Herbert: The right hon. Lady just does not get it, does she? She does not understand the difference between how much is spent and the service that we get out at the other end, because Labour measures the value of every public service by how much is being spent on it.
	Let me tell the right hon. Lady what the South Yorkshire chief constable said in January this year. He said that
	"the reduced level of government funding announced late last year was expected and I'm confident that our service to the public won't necessarily decline over the next two years."
	Let us look at the sums. Labour Members always say that there will be 20% cuts in budgets.

Nick Herbert: I shall make a little more progress, and then give way.
	The Labour party says that there will be 20% cuts in budgets-that is the language that Labour Members always use-but there will not be. No force will have a 20% cut in its budget, because forces raise money from their precept. Assuming reasonable rises in precept over the next four years, the cash reduction is 6%. Provided that forces do the right things, that is challenging but nevertheless deliverable.

Yvette Cooper: The Minister again says that some police forces are doing the right thing, and some the wrong thing. He referred to Chief Constable Meredydd Hughes of South Yorkshire police, who said this week:
	"We will be unable to continue to provide the same level of service we do today in such areas like neighbourhood policing"
	and diversionary and problem-solving activities. He also said:
	"A reduction in back officer support will put an increased burden on operational officers detracting them from frontline duties."
	Is the South Yorkshire chief constable right or wrong?

Nick Herbert: It is the same tired stuff from the shadow Home Secretary, reading out local press cuttings from around the country. She should reflect on the fact that police officer numbers were falling under the previous Government by the time we got to the election. In their last year in office, officer numbers fell in 27 forces across England and Wales-did we hear a squeak from them about that?-and officer numbers fell in 13 police forces in the five years before 2009.
	This is what the public need to know about Labour. It would cut police budgets by £1.5 billion-we heard that this evening-and yet Labour Members pretend that that would not mean fewer officers and staff. When asked in the election campaign, Labour refused to guarantee police numbers, yet Labour Members criticise the fall in numbers now. Labour Members say that cuts are too deep and front-loaded, yet they would be cutting £9 for every £10 we will cut next year; they claim that police and crime commissioners would cost too much, but their model would cost more; and they call Opposition debates and run their cynical campaigns, but they-

Question put accordingly (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.
	 The House divided: Ayes 210, Noes 289.

Question accordingly negatived.
	 Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the proposed words be there added.
	 The House divided: Ayes 282, Noes 209.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	 The Speaker declared the Main question, as amended, to be agreed to (Standing Order No. 31( 2 )).
	 Resolved,
	That this House welcomes the Government's comprehensive proposals to cut crime and increase the democratic accountability of policing while dealing with the largest peacetime deficit in history; supports the Government's determination to help the police make savings to protect frontline services; congratulates the police forces that are increasing the number of officers visible and available to the public; notes that the Opposition's spending plans require reductions in police spending; and regrets its refusal to support sensible savings or to set out an alternative.

That the draft Legal Services Act 2007 (Approved Regulators) Order 2011, which was laid before this House on 14 March, be approved. -(Mr Newmark.)
	 Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. -(Mr Newmark.)

Ann Clwyd: I am pleased to have the opportunity to debate this issue, because it is important that the case is raised here in the House of Commons. I want to talk about the treatment of Bradley Manning. An early-day motion on this subject-early-day motion1624-stands in my name and is currently supported by 37 right hon. and hon. Members, and I hope that others will add their names.
	I wish to speak this evening in terms very similar terms to those of the early-day motion, which reads as follows:
	"That this House expresses great concern at the treatment of Private First Class Bradley Manning, currently detained at the US Quantico Marine Base; notes the increasing level of interest and concern in the case in the UK and in particular in Wales; appeals to the US administration to ensure that his detention conditions are humane; and calls on the UK Government to raise the case with the US administration."
	That is what I want to expand on in this short debate. I want to explain why I am so concerned about Bradley Manning's case and why others should be too, and I want to ask the Minister to undertake to raise the case with the US Administration.
	Bradley Manning is the US soldier imprisoned at the US marine base at Quantico, Virginia. He is accused of being the person responsible for the leaking of the US Government information-about Iraq and about Afghanistan, and from US embassies around the world-that was released into the public domain through the website WikiLeaks. Bradley Manning is a serving member of the US armed forces and he is detained in a military prison. It is important for us to note that he has yet to be convicted of any offence-I am not sure whether there is a confirmed trial date, but I understand that it will not be until May or June.
	Like me, the Minister will want to be careful about describing the actions of which Bradley Manning is accused, because we have yet to have Bradley's account and he has still to have that account considered by a court. That is why I do not want us to get drawn into a discussion of the rights and wrongs of the WikiLeaks revelations. However, I would like to concentrate on the current conditions of detention for Bradley Manning. I have read the several accounts of Bradley's treatment which have appeared in the press. Some very good accounts that have appeared in  The Guardian have come from David Leigh, in particular, but the one that I paid most attention to was the one from Bradley himself. On 10 March, in an 11-page memorandum from Bradley Manning to the commanding officer of the Quantico marine base, issued through his lawyer, Bradley Manning described for us the conditions of his detention. This is what he said:
	"Since 2 March 2011, I have been stripped of all my clothing at night. I have been told that the PCF commander intends on continuing this practice indefinitely. Initially, after surrendering my clothing to the brig guards, I had no choice but to lay naked in my cold jail cell until the following morning. The next morning I was told to get out of my bed for the morning duty brig supervisor (DBS) inspection. I was not given any of my clothing back. I got out of the bed and immediately started to shiver because of how cold it was in my cell. I walked towards the front of my cell with my hands covering my genitals. The guard told me to stand at parade rest, which required me to stand with my hands behind my back and my legs spaced shoulder width apart. I stood at 'parade rest' for about three minutes until the DBS arrived. Once the DBS arrived, everyone was called to attention. The DBS and the other guards walked past my cell. The DBS looked at me, paused for a moment, and then continued to the next detainee's cell. I was incredibly embarrassed at having all these people stare at me naked. After the DBS completed his inspection, I was told to go and sit on my bed. About 10 minutes later I was given my clothes and allowed to get dressed...Under my current restrictions, in addition to being stripped at night, I am essentially held in solitary confinement. For 23 hours per day, I sit alone in my cell. The guards check on me every five minutes during the day by asking me if I am OK. I am required to respond in some affirmative manner."

Ann Clwyd: No, I do not yet know that, but I think that it will be in a couple of months' time.
	Bradley Manning's account continued:
	"At night, if the guards cannot see me clearly, because I have a blanket over my head or I am curled up towards the wall, they will wake me in order to ensure that I am OK...I am prevented from exercising in my cell. If I attempt to do push-ups, sit-ups, or any other form of exercise I am forced to stop. Finally, I receive only one hour of exercise outside of my cell daily. My exercise is usually limited to me walking figures of eight in an empty room."
	We also learn from this memorandum, issued through his lawyer, that his treatment ignores the repeated recommendations of the Marine Corps' own appointed psychiatrists. They repeatedly say that Bradley Manning's detention status should be changed. That treatment serves no purpose other than to humiliate and degrade Bradley Manning. I regard it as cruel and unnecessary.
	Bradley Manning calls his conditions "improper treatment" and "unlawful pre-trial punishment". Human Rights Watch has called on the US Government to
	"explain the precise reasons behind extremely restrictive and possibly punitive and degrading treatment that Army Private First Class Bradley Manning alleges he has received".
	Amnesty International has said:
	"Manning is being subjected to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. This is particularly disturbing when one considers that he hasn't even been brought to trial, let alone convicted of a crime".
	The United Nations special rapporteur on torture, who I have spoken to in the House of Commons about the case, has officially raised his concerns with the US Administration and is awaiting a response.
	We have not only those views but a view from inside the US Administration. Until recently, P. J. Crowley was the spokesman for the US State Department. He was a senior and well respected official and a career member of the US armed forces. Early in March he was forced to resign following comments he made about the treatment of Bradley Manning at a university seminar. He called the treatment of Bradley Manning "ridiculous", "counterproductive" and "stupid".
	Since his resignation, P. J. Crowley has gone on to explain why he said what he did, including in a column in  The Guardian last week . He says:
	"As a public diplomat and (until recently) spokesman of the department of state, I was responsible for explaining the national security policy of the United States to the American people and populations abroad. I am also a retired military officer who has long believed that our civilian power must balance our military power. Part of our strength comes from international recognition that the United States practises what we preach."
	He goes on:
	"Based on 30 years of government experience, if you have to explain why a guy is standing naked in the middle of a jail cell, you have a policy in need of urgent review."
	Finally, he says:
	"So, when I was asked...I said the treatment of Private Manning, while well-intentioned, was 'ridiculous' and 'counterproductive' and, yes, 'stupid'.
	I stand by what I said."
	In the article and the interviews he has given, P. J. Crowley-a career US military and Government man-sets out why Bradley Manning's case is important. It is important because of the message it sends to the rest of the world about what kind of treatment the United States thinks is acceptable for people in detention. As for us, it is important what we say-or what we do not say-because of the message that it sends about the kind of treatment we in the United Kingdom and in the UK Government think is acceptable. That matters in countries where human rights are not so well observed. People will pay attention in China, in Russia, in Libya, where we want to be on the side of those fighting for freedom from state repression, and most of all in Afghanistan. The image that Britain and the US have in the world matters to the UK and US service personnel fighting in Afghanistan.
	I know that only too well from my experience in Iraq as special envoy on human rights over a seven-year period. In my view some of the greatest damage was caused to British and American efforts in Iraq when the stories of prisoner abuse emerged. It undermined our moral authority at a time when we needed to explain that we were fighting for a better future for Iraq, free from the torture and abuse suffered under the regime of Saddam Hussein. The United States and the UK, in the way we respond to US actions, need to preserve that moral authority if we are to have a positive impact on the world and lead by example.
	So what am I asking the Minister to do? Let me address the issue of British nationality, because it seems to me to have been something of a red herring. I am not raising Bradley Manning's case because he is a British national but because I believe his treatment is cruel and unnecessary and that we should say so. I am also chair of the all-party group on human rights and so I often raise human rights cases from around the world. They might be in Burma, Chechnya, East Timor, China, or, sadly, too many other places besides. I do not raise them because they involve British citizens, but because they involve human rights abuses or wrongdoing and because I am in politics because I want to do something to try to stop those things happening.
	I want the British Government to raise Bradley Manning's treatment with the US Administration because his treatment is cruel and unnecessary and we should be saying so. We cannot deny, however, that Bradley's connection to the UK adds an additional dimension. Bradley's mother, Susan, is Welsh and lives in Pembrokeshire. Bradley lived and went to school in Wales between the ages of 13 and 17. There is a great deal of interest in the UK, and in particular in Wales, in Bradley's case and much of that is grounded in his close connection to the UK. Both London and Wrexham have seen protests against Bradley Manning's treatment, and I pay tribute to those people in the UK who have raised his case.
	Perhaps the Minister will take this opportunity to clarify, on the record, just what the position is with regard to British nationality. My understanding is that under the British Nationality Act 1981 anyone born outside the UK after 1 January 1983 who has a mother who is a UK citizen by birth is British by descent. Perhaps the Minister will assist us by confirming that that is the case. I am aware that Bradley Manning's lawyer has issued a statement that Bradley is not asserting any kind of UK nationality. I know that, but from the point of view of British law, is it the case that Bradley Manning qualifies for British nationality?
	I shall mention briefly the British aspect of the case, which concerns Bradley's mother and family in Wales. I have met some of Bradley's family-his aunt and uncle-and I am in contact with them. This will be an exceptionally hard time for Bradley Manning's family, not just for his mother and family in Wales, but for his father and that side of his family in the United States. He is accused of the gravest of crimes which, according to some reports, can attract the death penalty, and there is intense media interest in Bradley, in anything to do with WikiLeaks and in the information that was revealed about the US Government.
	Part of Bradley's family live in Pembrokeshire and their son is in a military prison in Virginia in the US. They are being contacted by journalists, campaigners and politicians who are trying to raise the case. This is a difficult situation for any family to deal with. What kind of consular, official or other support could be made available to Bradley's mother and family? When they visit Bradley in the US, for example, can they expect assistance from British embassy staff in the US? Can they receive advice and assistance in understanding the charges faced by their son, and perhaps advice, too, about the issue of British nationality?
	I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say. I hope that in his reply he does not say that we do not know what Bradley Manning's conditions are. We have his own statement, backed by his lawyer, from which I read earlier. I am sure the Minister will not try to defend the harsh treatment that Bradley Manning is experiencing because of the gravity of the charges. That is beside the point. I hope the hon. Gentleman does not try to say that as he is not a British citizen, it is not appropriate to raise Bradley Manning's case with the US Administration, because we raise cases with other countries all the time. I hope he will not fail to acknowledge that Bradley Manning, having lived for a time in the UK, and given that his mother and that side of his family are British, creates an additional obligation on the Government to act in that family's best interests.
	I hope that the Minister can give two undertakings tonight-first, that the British Government will officially raise the case with the US Administration, and secondly, that the Government will consider what support they could provide to the British family of Bradley Manning as they try to do whatever they can to help Bradley.

Henry Bellingham: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) on securing the debate, which is of considerable interest not just to a number of right hon. and hon. Members but to her constituents and others in Wales, as well as to the country as a whole. The right hon. Lady is deservedly well respected for her understanding and championing of human rights. Her work in Afghanistan and Iraq is widely admired.
	As the Foreign Secretary said last week during the launch of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's report on human rights:
	"Our government promised from the outset a foreign policy that will always have support for human rights and poverty reduction at its irreducible core. It is not in our character as a nation to have a foreign policy without a conscience, and neither is it in our interests."
	I therefore welcome this chance to discuss matters that give rise to concern among Members of the House. Although recent events in the middle east and north Africa continue to demand the attention of my ministerial colleagues, it is important that we do not lose sight of developments elsewhere in the world, including in the countries that are closest to us.
	The right hon. Lady makes a number of points about the treatment of Private Manning, including those from a memo of 10 March 2011 from Private Manning to his commanding officer, released by Private Manning's lawyer. I have read the memo and have listened carefully to the different points that the right hon. Lady has made, including allegations of mistreatment in detention.
	Her Majesty's Government are committed to working towards the eradication of mistreatment that may amount to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. We do not condone its use for any purposes. We take allegations extremely seriously and, where appropriate, raise general and specific concerns with foreign Governments. That is why we fund work to support professional and ethical policing. We also fund human rights approaches to prison management and initiatives to support a robust legal system and civil society, including an independent judiciary, which all contribute to tackling mistreatment.
	As far as Her Majesty's Government are concerned, the conditions in which an individual is detained must meet international standards. Conditions that fail to meet this standard may amount to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. This is particularly important for an individual in pre-trial detention. The manner in which a detainee is held depends on an objective assessment of the security risk posed by that individual, their health and their behaviour in prison. This must be justified by the detaining authority. In general, we are content that conditions in the US detention system meet international standards and that there is a clear legal process for a detainee to be able to challenge their conditions of detention.
	In this case, President Obama himself has said that he has sought and received assurances from the Department of Defence that Private Manning's treatment is "appropriate" and meets US "basic standards". Of course, the United States has an effective and robust judicial system. It is a champion of human rights the world over. However, where crimes are alleged to have occurred they must be investigated. This is currently the case. The fact that we have seen the memo from Private Manning to his commanding officer is evidence that his legal representation is working. We must allow the legal case to follow its course without interference.
	Where representatives of this House or members of the public have concerns, we have a duty to listen. On 16 March the right hon. Lady raised her concerns about Private Manning's treatment with the Foreign Secretary during the oral evidence session of the Foreign Affairs Committee, and on 17 March she repeated her call for discussion of the issue during business questions. Be assured that we are in no doubt of her concerns, which we know are shared by a number of Members across the House. Indeed, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) has already received more than 30 letters from Members of the House.
	In line with the Foreign Secretary's response to the right hon. Lady during the Foreign Affairs Committee evidence session, a senior official in our embassy in Washington called on the US State Department on 29 March. He drew its attention to her concerns over Private Manning and handed over a copy of the uncorrected transcript of the Committee's oral evidence session and a copy of her early-day motion 1624, which was tabled on 17 March. He also drew attention to the debate taking place today as a measure of the level of parliamentary interest in the subject. The State Department took note and agreed to convey the information to all those dealing with the case. Our US interlocutors know that where we have concerns we will raise them. The strength of our relationship empowers us to discuss difficult issues and we will continue to raise concerns where and when necessary. However, let us be clear that President Obama has stated that he has received assurances that Private Manning's treatment is meeting basic standards.
	I know that there will be many who feel that we should do more in the light of reports of Private Manning's links to the UK. The UK Government have a duty to protect his privacy and as such it would not be appropriate to discuss his nationality without his consent. I note that his lawyer wrote on his blog on 2 February:
	"Private... Manning does not hold a British passport, nor does he consider himself a British citizen".
	Therefore, it is clear that he neither is asking for our help, nor considering himself to be British. Although I have said that we do not normally discuss a person's nationality without their consent, I will say that the right hon. Lady's understanding of the British Nationality Act 1981 is accurate. Any person born outside the UK after 1 January 1983 whose mother is a UK citizen by birth is British by descent.

Julian Lewis: May I, from the Government Benches, urge the Minister to convey to our American friends and allies that those of us who believe that, if Private Manning is guilty of the leakage of which he is charged, he did a very terrible thing indeed, are nevertheless convinced that it is fatal to snatch defeat from the jaws of a sort-of victory by focusing attention on the conditions in which he is being held, rather than on the question of the guilt or innocence of his conduct? The word "counter-productive" should be at the forefront of our American allies' minds when they consider how to treat him.

Henry Bellingham: I thank my hon. Friend for his very wise remarks. He is a candid friend of our American allies, and his points are very well made. All people who are detained in custody deserve to be treated in detention according to the highest international standards, and we certainly expect nothing else-nothing less-from the United States.
	To return to the point about Private Manning's nationality, we must respect his wishes on the matter and recognise the limitations on UK involvement. The right hon. Lady mentions Mr Manning's family, and we have not had a direct request from them, but obviously, if it comes to consular assistance of any kind, we will look at that request as and when one is made.
	Private Manning is serving in the US armed forces and has been detained in the US while he is subject to legal proceedings. He has access to legal counsel who, from the reports I have seen, appear to be very active in defending his case. That case is ongoing, and we are confident in this instance that US judicial processes are sound.
	In the light of the right hon. Lady's representations tonight, I will instruct our officials at our embassy in Washington again to report the concerns of this House to officials in the State Department. I will also discuss with the Foreign Secretary and the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire, who has responsibility for north America, what else we might be able to do, while respecting the views of Private Manning and his legal counsel.
	I can assure the right hon. Lady that we are concerned: we have listened very carefully to what she has said before; I have listened to what she has said tonight; and, as I assured her a moment ago, in response to that we will instruct our officials at our embassy in Washington again to report our concerns to officials in the State Department.
	Once again, I thank the right hon. Lady for raising the issue. I hope that what I have said is of some help and of some interest to her.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 House adjourned.